Skip to main content

Full text of "A review of the doctrine of the Eucharist : with four charges to the clergy of Middlesex connected with the same subject"

See other formats

Ex Libris 




X \ 

: ^ 


-. I 

^ \. 














Forming parts of Vols. IV. and V. of his Collected "Works 





THIS volume has been issued at the request of 
the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, with the 
view of placing within the reach of those who may 
not be able to procure the collected Works of Dr. 
Waterland, and especially of candidates for Holy 
Orders, a treatise which was once considered almost 
as the text-book of the Church of England on the 
subject of the Eucharist, but which, in common 
with many of the works of the great Anglican 
Divines, has been somewhat cast into the shade 
by the lapse of time and the rapid issue of 
modern theological literature, and is, there is 
reason to fear, far less known at present than it 

Though suggested probably, on the one hand, 
by the publication of Mr. Johnson's 'Unbloody 
Sacrifice,' and by Dr. Brett's ' Discourse Concern- 
ing the Necessity of Discerning the Lord's Body,' 
and, on the other, by the Socinianising tracts of 
Bishop Hoadley on the Lord's Supper, and by an 


amicable controversy in which the Author had 
been engaged with Dr. Zachary Pearce, yet the 
'Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist/ as 
Bishop Van Mildert has observed, 'has little the 
aspect of a polemical work, although so large a 
portion of it may be applied as a corrective, or a 
preventive, of error. With scarcely any personal 
reference to the living authors of his time who 
entertained different views of the subject from 
that which he supported, Dr. Waterland has so 
conducted his train of reasoning and investiga- 
tion, as to meet all their diversities of opinion in 
their full force ; stating them with candour and 
fairness, and controverting them with no less 
moderation than ability and decision/ 

And the three Charges to the Clergy of Mid- 
dlesex which defend and supplement his former 
treatise, that ' On the Christian Sacrifice' (with 
its Appendix in reply to Johnson), that ' On 
the Sacramental Part of the Eucharist/ and 
that ' On the Distinctions of Sacrifice/ occasioned 
though they were by ' Some Remarks on the 
Review' by Dr. Brett, are equally devoid of 
controversial acrimony, nor are they of merely 
local or personal application. They form, together 
with the ' Review/ a body of teaching on the 
doctrine of the Eucharist, especially with reference 
to the various opinions on this vital subject which 
have been maintained within our own Church, 


almost equally applicable to all times, and having a 
peculiar interest and importance in our own. The 
wide and intimate acquaintance which Waterland 
possessed, not only with the Christian Fathers but 
with the Romish Theologians and the writings of 
the foreign Reformers, the perfect fairness with 
which he, almost invariably, states and meets the 
views and reasoning which he controverts, and the 
singular simplicity, clearness, and vigour of his 
style, have placed him among the most trust- 
worthy and instructive of our own Divines : and 
while asserting and defending, as the true doctrine 
of the Eucharist, the via media between two ex- 
tremes, which, though not excluded by the tolerant 
moderation of our Articles and formularies, have 
each too facile a tendency to pass into serious 
error, he will be found, even by those whom he 
does not convince, to leave them in no doubt as 
to the meaning of his language and the bearing 
of his arguments ; and by others, and especially 
by students in divinity, a safe and perspicuous 
guide to those tenets on the Sacrament of the 
Lord's Supper which, as a matter of fact, have 
been held by the great majority of the ablest and 
most learned Theologians of the Reformed Church 
of England. 

J. L. 



A Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist, as laid down in Scripture 
and Antiquity ... ... ..... i 

An Introduction, first briefly shewing the Design of the Treatise, 
and next premising some Considerations : viz. 

I. That Scripture is our only Rule 3 

II. That for the right understanding of Scripture, it is of great 
moment to know what the most eminent Writers before us 
have taught, and what they have agreed in ... 3 

1. More particularly, Ancients first . . . 5 

2. And then Moderns 6 

III. That of the two Extremes, Profaneness and Superstition, 

the latter is the safest for any one to lean to .8 

IV. That it is injuring and degrading the Sacraments to call 
them Positive Duties, rather than Religious Rites . . 1 1 

1. The Eucharist not merely a Duty, but a sacred Rite, 
wherein God bears a Part . . . . . .11 

2. That Part of it which is Duty, is not a single Duty, 

but more . . . . . . . . 1 3 

CHAP. I. Explaining the most noted or most considerable Names 
of the Holy Communion . . . . . . . .16 

1 . Breaking of Bread . . . . . . . .16 

2. Communion . . . . . . . . .18 

3. Lord's Supper . . . . . . . . .19 

4. Oblation . . . . . . . . . .21 

5. Sacrament .......... 26 

6. Eucharist .......... 29 

7. Sacrifice . . 30 

8. Memorial . . ; .- . . ..." .-."-''. 32 

9. Passover . . . . . . . .. -. . 34 

10. Mass -. 37 



CHAP. II. Considering the Institution of the Holy Communion, 

as recorded by St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. Paul 38 

It came in the place of the Jewish Passover . . . .41 

I. Resembling it in several Circumstances . . -42 

2. Deriving its Forms and Phrases from it . . .43 

CHAP. III. Concerning the Commemoration of Christ, in the 

Holy Communion 46 

1. Remembering him as God-Man . . . . . . 48 

2. Commemorating him as such . . . '.;--. 54 

3. Celebrating his Memorial ... ... ; 58 

CHAP. IV. Concerning the Commemoration of the Death of 

Christ . . . ... . . . .62 

1. As an expiatory Sacrifice . . . . . . 63 

2. Which is applied in the Eucharist . . . . 69 

CHAP. V. Of the Consecration of the Elements . . " . 74 

1. In what sense they are blessed or consecrated ... 74 

2. By whom they are blessed . . . . . -77 

3. What the Blessing amounts to . . . 79 

CHAP. VI. Of Spiritual Feeding according to John vi. . .89 

1. The Sense of the Ancients on that head . . . .99 

2. The Sentiments of Moderns . . . . . .123 

CHAP. VII. Of Sacramental, Symbolical Feeding in the Eucha- 
rist ' . . .' . . . 129 

1. The Sentiments of the Ancients on that head . . .141 

2. The Sentiments of Moderns . . . . . .163 

CHAP. VIII. i Cor. x. 16 explained, and vindicated from 

misconstruction . . . . . . . . 175 

Objections answered ........ 194 

CHAP. IX. Remission of Sins conferred in the Eucharist . 210 

Proved from Scripture 218 

From Antiquity . 220 

Judgment of the Reformers, and of the Church of England . 225 

Objections removed . 228 


CHAP. X. Sanctifying Grace conferred in the Eucharist 
Proved from i Cor. x. 16 
Proved from John vi. ....... 

Proved from Analogy ....... 

Proved from i Cor. xii. 13. 

The Judgment of the Ancients hereupon .... 

The Sentiments of Moderns on the same .... 

CHAP. XI. The Eucharist considered as a Federal Rite . 

Argued from the Nature of Communion .... 

From the Custom of drinking Blood in Covenants 

From the Words of Institution 

From the Analogy between that and Sacrifices, or Sacrificial 
Feasts . 289 

Objections to Dr. Cudworth's Notion considered and con- 
futed .......... 291 

CHAP. XII. The Eucharist considered in a Sacrificial View . 306 
Some Account of Dr. Grabe's Sentiments .... 307 
The Eucharist a spiritual Sacrifice, how . . . .310 

The Judgment of the Ancients on that head . . -312 

The Judgment of Moderns ....... 349 

CHAP. XIII Of the Preparation proper for the Holy Com- 
munion . . . . . . . . . -351 

1. Baptism . . . . . . . . . .352 

2. Competent Knowledge . . . . . . '353 

3. Sound Faith 353 

4. True Repentance ........ 354 

Consisting chiefly in Restitution ..... 358 

Readiness to forgive . . . .362 
Peaceableness ..... 366 
Charity to the Poor .... 366 

CHAP. XIV. Of the Obligation to frequent Communion . . 369 
How stated in the several Ages of the Church : 

First Century , . 371 

Second . . 372 

Third 374 

Fourth 374 

Fifth .386 

Sixth 389 

Seventh 390 

Eighth 390 



The Doctrinal Use of the Christian Sacraments considered : in a Charge 
delivered to the Middlesex Clergy, May i2th, 1736 . . . 395 

The Christian Sacrifice Explained, in a Charge delivered in part to 
the Middlesex Clergy at St. Clement-Danes, April the aoth, 1 738. 
To which is added an Appendix . . . . . . . 413 

The Sacramental Part of the Eucharist Explained, in a Charge deli- 
vered in part to the Clergy of Middlesex, at the Easter Visita- 
tion, 1739 -4 8 5 

Distinctions of Sacrifice ; set forth in a Charge delivered in part to 
the Clergy of Middlesex, at the Easter Visitation, 1740 . . 543 






Ut autem literam sequi, et signa pro rebus quae iis significantur accipere, 
servilis infirmitatis est ; ita inutiliter signa interpretari, male vagantis 
erroris est. 

Augustini de Doct. Christ, lib. iii. cap. 9. p. 49. 


IN the latter part of the sixth chapter, I have followed the 
common opinion of learned Protestants, (Mr. Bingham, Dr. 
Wall, &c.) in relation to Infant Communion, as prevailing in 
the fifth century, under a notion of its strict necessity, built 
upon John vi. 53. Though I had some scruple about it; as 
may appear by my manner of expressing myself, and by the 
reference to Thorndike in noteK 

Having since looked somewhat deeper into that question, I 
think it now just to my readers to advertise them, that I 
apprehend that common opinion to be a mistake ; and that 
though the practice of giving Communion to children at ten 
or at seven years of age (or somewhat sooner) was ancient, 
and perhaps general, yet the practice of communicating mere 
infants, under a notion of its necessity, and as built upon John 
vi, came not in before the eighth or ninth century, never was 
general ; or however lasted not long in the West, where it 
first began. My reasons for this persuasion are too long to 
give here : but I thought this short hint might be proper, 
to prevent misconceptions as to that Article. 


MY design in this work is to treat of the Sacrament of the Holy 
Communion, according to the light which Scripture and right 
reason afford, making use of such helps and means for the in- 
terpreting Scripture, as God's good providence, in former or 
later ages, has furnished us with. The subject is of very great 
weight in itself, and of near concern to every Christian ; and 
'therefore ought to be studied with a care proportioned to the 
importance of it : that so we may govern both ourselves and our 
people aright, in a matter of such consequence ; avoiding with 
great caution the extremes on both hands, both of excessive 
superstition on one hand, and of profane neglect on the other. 
We are now visibly under the extreme of neglect ; and therefore 
we ought to study by all means possible to inspire our people 
with a just respect for this holy institution, and to animate 
them to desire earnestly to partake often of it ; and in order 
to that, to prepare themselves seriously, to set about it with 
reverence and devotion, and with those holy purposes, and 
solemn vows, that ought to accompany it a .' 

But before I enter upon the main subject, it may not be 
improper here to throw in some previous considerations, in 
order to prepare my readers for what they will find in this 
treatise, that they may the more easily form a true and sound 
judgment of the subject-matter of it. 

I. The first consideration is, that Scripture alone is our com- 
plete rule of faith and manners, 'containing all things necessary 
to salvation, so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be 
proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should 
be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or 
necessary to salvationV 

Whatever Scripture contains, either in express words rightly 
understood, or by consequence justly deduced, is Scripture 
doctrine, and ought to be religiously believed and obeyed ; 
allowing only for the different degrees of importance belonging 
to different Scripture truths, or Scripture precepts. 

II. For the right understanding of Scripture, it is of great 

Bp. Burnet on Article XXX f. p. 484. b Article VI. 

B 2 

4 The Introduction. 

moment to know what the most eminent writers or teachers, 
ancient and modern, have thought before us on the same 
subject ; and more especially to observe what they unanimously 
agreed in. For, as they had the same Scriptures before them, 
and the same common reason to direct them, and used as much 
care and diligence, and were blessed with as great integrity as 
any of us now can justly pretend to, their judgment is not to be 
slighted, nor their instructions to be despised. The 'responsa 
prudentum,' the reports, precedents, and adjudged cases are 
allowed to be of considerable weight for determining points of 
law : and why should they not be of like weight, ordinarily, for 
the determining points of theology? Human law there, and 
Divine law here, is properly the authentic rule of action : but 
the common reason of mankind is properly the rule of interpre- 
tation in both cases : and that common reason shines out the 
brightest, and appears in greatest perfection, in the united ver- 
dict of the wisest and most excellent men. It is much easier for 
one, or for some few fallible interpreters to be deceived, than for 
many, other circumstances supposed equal. Nothing less than 
very clear Scripture, or as clear reason, ought to weigh any- 
thing against the concurring sentiments of the Christian world : 
and even in such a case, some fair account ought to be given, 
how it came to pass, that such, clear Scripture or clear reason 
had hitherto escaped the notice, or missed of the acceptance of 
the wisest and best of men. 

A very judicious writer of our own has observed, that 
'variety of judgments and opinions argueth obscurity in those 
things whereabout they differ ; but that which all parts receive 
for truth, that which, every one having sifted, is by no one 
denied or doubted of, must needs be matter of infallible 
certainty .' This he applies to the general doctrine of the Holy 
Communion, as being ' instrumentally a cause of the real 
participation of Christ, and of life in his body and blood d .' 
And it is of this that he says, ' that all sides at length, for 
aught he could see, were come to a general agreement : all 
approve and acknowledge to be most true, as having nothing in 
it but that which the words of Christ are on all sides confessed 
to enforce ; nothing but that which the Church of God hath 
always thought necessary ; nothing but that which alone is 
sufficient for every Christian man to believe concerning the use 
and force of this Sacrament : finally, nothing but that wherewith 
the writings of all antiquity are consonant, and all Christian 
confessions agreeable 6 .' Thus wrote that excellent person in 

c Hooker, b. v. p 310. d Compare p. 306. e Page 306. 

The Introduction, 5 

the year 1597. The Zuinglians by that time had corrected, or 
more clearly explained their principles : and Socinus was scarce 
yet known on this side the water, or had made no figure 
with respect to this subject, or none worth the mentioning, 
in opposition to a prescription of fifteen hundred years before 
him, and to the united voice of all the churches in his time. It 
is a maxim of prudence, as in all other matters, so also in the 
interpreting Scripture, to consult with the wise, and to take to 
our assistance the most eminent lights we can anywhere find, 
either among ancients or moderns. To be a little more par- 
ticular, I may here observe something distinctly of each. 

i. As to ancients, some lived in the very infancy of the 
Church, had personally known our blessed Lord in the flesh, or 
conversed with the Apostles, and afterwards governed their 
respective churches, as venerable bishops, many years, often 
administering the Holy Communion, and at length dying 
martyrs. Is it at all likely, that such men as they were should 
not understand the true Scripture doctrine concerning the 
Sacraments, or that they should affect to delude the people 
committed to their charge, with superstitious conceits, or fond 
expectations 1 A man must be of a very odd turn of mind, who 
can deliberately entertain so unworthy a thought of the apo- 
stolical Fathers, or can presume to imagine that he sees deeper 
into the use or force of those sacred institutions than those holy 
men did. It is reasonable to conceive, that the New Testament 
was penned with a very particular view to the capacities of the 
first readers or hearers ; not only because it was natural to 
adapt the style to the then current language and customs, but 
also because much depended upon making the Gospel plain and 
intelligible to the first converts, above all that should come 
after. If the earliest Christians, after the Apostles, could not 
readily understand the religion then taught, how should it be 
handed down with advantage to others of later times ] But if the 
Scripture doctrine should be supposed comparatively obscure to 
those that come after, yet so long as the earlier Christians found 
it perfectly clear, and left behind them useful memoirs whereby 
we may learn how they understood it, there will be sufficient 
security against any dangerous mistakes in succeeding ages, by 
looking back to the sense of the most early interpreters. Great 
regard therefore ought to be paid to the known sense and 
judgment of the apostolical Fathers f . The later Fathers, of the 
second, third, and fourth centuries, have their weight also, in 
proportion to their known integrity, and abilities, and fame in 

f Of this see more in Abp. Wake's Apostolical Fathers, Introd. chap. x. 

6 The Introduction. 

all the churches ; and more especially in proportion to their early 
standing, their nearness to the fountain-head S. 

2. As to moderns of best note, they agree with the ancients 
in the main things, and may be usefully consulted on the present 
subject. Some of them have been eminently skilled in Jewish 
antiquities, and others in ecclesiastical. Some have excelled in 
criticism and the learned languages : others in clearness of 
conception and accuracy of judgment : all are useful in their 
several ways, and may suggest many things which upon due 
inquiry will be found to be right, and which no single writer, 
left to himself, and without consulting them, would ever have 
thought on. A man that affects to think by himself will often 
fancy he sees that in Scripture which is not there, and will 
overlook what there really is : he will run wide in his con- 
jectures, criticize in a wrong place, and fall short in most things, 
for want of compass, and larger views, or for want of a due 
consideration of consequences here or there. Truth is of wide 
extent, and is all over uniform and consistent : and it may- 
require many eyes to look out, and search round, that every 
position advanced may agree with all truths, natural and 
revealed, and that no heterogeneous mixture be admitted to 
deform and deface the whole system. How often does it happen, 
that a man pleases himself with a thought, which strikes him at 
first view, and which perhaps he looks upon as demonstration : 
and yet further inquiries into other men's labours may at length 
convince him that it is mere delusion, justly exploded by the 
more knowing and judicious. There are numberless instances 
of that kind to be met with among men of letters : which should 
make every writer cautious how he presumes too far upon his 
own unassisted abilities, and how he opposes his single judg- 
ment to the united verdict of wise, great, and good men. It 
requires commonly much pains and care to trace a notion quite 
through ; to run it up to its first principles, and again to 
traverse it to its remotest consequences, and to clear it of all just 
objections, in order to be at length rationally satisfied, that it is 
sound and good, and consistent throughout. Different churches, 
or parties, have their different interpretations of the same texts, 
and their different superstructures built upon the same prin- 
ciples. They have respectively their several, pleas, pretences, 
arguments, solutions, for the maintaining a debate either in the 
offensive or defensive way. A subject thus comes to be narrowly 
scanned, and minutely viewed on every side ; and so at length a 

This argument is considered at large in my Importance of the Doc- 
trine of the Trinity Asserted, vol. iii. ch. vii. pp. 601 666. 

The Introduction. 7 

consistent chain of truth may be wrought out, by a careful hand, 
from what the finest wits or ablest heads among the several 
contending parties have happily supplied. 

But perhaps it may here be asked ; Is then every man obliged 
to look deep into religious controversies'? Are not the Scriptures 
alone sufficient for any plain and sincere Christian to conduct 
himself by, whether as to faith or manners 1 I answer : i. Com- 
mon Christians must be content to understand Scripture as they 
may, under the help of such guides as Providence has placed 
over them, and in the conscientious use of such means as are 
proper to their circumstances: which is all that ordinarily can 
be required of them. 2. Those who undertake to direct and 
guide them are more particularly obliged to search, into religious 
controversies, and to ' prove all things' (as far as lies in their 
power) in order to lead others in the right way. 3. Those 
guides ought, in their inquiries or instructions, to pay a proper 
regard and deference to other guides of eminent note, ancient 
and modern, and not lightly to contradict them, or vary from 
them ; remembering always, that themselves are fallible, and 
that new notions (in religion especially) are not comparable, 
generally speaking, to the old, proved, and tried. 4. If any 
man interpreting Scripture in a new sense, pretends that his 
doctrine at least is old, being Scripture doctrine ; he should be 
told, that his interpretation however is new, and very suspicious, 
because new, and so not likely to be Scripture doctrine. The 
novelty of it is itself a strong presumption against it, and such 
as nothing can overbalance but very clear and plain reasons on 
that side. The judgment of ten thousand interpreters will 
always be of considerable weight against the judgment of some 
few, who are but interpreters at best, and as fallible as any 
other : and it must argue great conceitedness and self-suffi- 
ciency, for a man to expect to be heard, or attended to, as a 
scripturist, or a textuary, in opposition to the Christian world ; 
unless he first fairly considers and confutes what the ablest 
writers have pleaded for the received construction, and next as 
fairly proves and enforces his own. That there is very great 
weight and force in the united voice of the Christian world, is a 
point not to be denied by any : and indeed those that affect to 
set up new notions are themselves aware of it, and tacitly, at 
least, confess the same thing. For they value such authorities 
as they are any way able to procure, or even to torture so far as 
to make them speak on their side : and they pride themselves 
highly in the number of their disciples, (as often as they chance 
to succeed,) thinking it a great advantage to their cause, if but 

8 The Introduction. 

the multitude only, or the vulgar herd, approve and espouse the 
same thing with them. Socinus, for instance, while he slighted, 
or pretended to slight, the concurring judgment of all churches, 
ancient and modern, yet felt a very sensible pleasure in the 
applauses of some few individuals, whom he had been able to 
deceive : and he looked upon their approbation as a confirming 
circumstance that his sentiments were true and right. This 
kind of natural logic appears to be common to our whole species : 
and there are few, I believe, so sanguine, (unless disordered,) 
as to confide entirely in their own judgment, or not to suspect 
their own best reasonings, however plausible they may at first 
appear, if they have nobody else to concur with them and sup- 
port them. Therefore again I conclude as before, that it is of 
great moment to know and consider what others have thought 
before us, and what the common reason of mankind approves : 
and the more numerous or the more considerable the persons 
were or are who stand against us in any article, the less 
reason, generally, have we to be confident of our own private 

I shall only add, that in subjects which have already passed 
through many hands, and which have been thoroughly sifted 
and considered by the ablest and best heads, in a course of 
seventeen hundred years, there appears to be a great deal more 
room for judgment than for invention; since little new can now 
be thought on that is worth notice: and it is much wiser and 
safer to take the most valuable observations of men most eminent 
in their several ways, than to advance poor things of our own, 
which perhaps are scarce worth the mentioning in comparison. 

III. I must further premise, in relation to our present subject, 
that as there may be two extremes, viz. of superstition on one 
hand, and of profaneness on the other, it appears to be much safer 
and better to lean towards the former extreme, than to incline 
to the latter. Where there is room for doubt, it is prudent to err 
rather on that side which ascribes too much to the Sacrament, 
than on that which ascribes too little. i. Because it is 
erring on the side of the precepts : for Scripture gives us express 
cautions 1 " against paying too little regard to this holy Sacrament, 
but never cautions us at all, or however not expressly, against 
the contrary extreme. 2. Besides, since we attempt not, and 
desire not to carry the respect due to the Sacrament at all higher 
than the ancient churches, and the primitive saints and martyrs 
have carried the same before, it will be en-ing on the humble, 
modest, pious side, if we should happen to run into an extreme, 

h i Cor. xi. 27, 29. 

The Introduction, 9 

after such bright examples. And this again is much safer (for 
who would not wish that his lot may be amongst the saints ?) 
than it can be to deviate into the contrary extreme of irreverence, 
and to come so much the nearer to the faithless and unbelieving, 
who have their portion in this life. 

It may be pleaded perhaps, that a person does no harm, or 
risks no danger, by erring on the lessening side, because God will 
certainly perform what he has really promised of the Sacraments 
to every worthy receiver, whether believed or no. But then the 
question is, how a man can be thought a worthy receiver, who, 
without sufficient grounds, disbelieves the promises, much more 
if he confidently rejects them, and teaches others also to do so. 
Schlictingius pleads in this case, that the effect of the Sacrament 
will be the same to every one that receives, though he disbelieves 
the doctrine of its being a mean of grace i, or the like : as if he 
thought that the outward act of receiving were all, and that the 
inward qualification of faith were of no moment. But that was 
his great mistake. They Avho disbelieve and openly deny the 
inward graces of the Sacrament are unworthy receivers for that 
very reason, and ordinarily forfeit all right and title to the 
promised graces. 

It may be further pleaded, on the same side, that the notion 
of the Sacraments, as means of grace, (supposing it erroneous,) 
is apt to lead men to rely upon the Sacraments more than upon 
their own serious endeavours for the leading a good life, or 
to rest in the Sacraments as sufficient without keeping God's 
commandments. But this is a suggestion built upon no certain 
grounds. For suppose AVC were deceived (as we certainly are 
not) in our high conceptions of the use and efficacy of this 
Sacrament ; all that follows is, that we may be thereby led to 
frequent the Sacrament so much the oftener ; to come to it with 
the greater reverence, and to repeat our solemn vows for the 
leading a good life, by the assistance of Divine grace, with the 
more serious and devout affections. No divines amongst us, 

1 'Articulus de coena Domini et necesse est.' Schlicting. adv. Balthas. 

baptismo (si vera est vestra sen- Meisn. p. 6. Conf. Socin. de Coena, 

tentia, qua coenam Domini et bap- torn. i. p. 767. 

tismum media esse statuitis per quae To which Abr. Calovius well an- 

Deus spirituales efFectus in animis swers : ' Negare nos, sacramenta 

hominum operetur) exprimit quidem talia media esse quae illico efFectus 

causam salutis instrumentalem : sed aequatur, etiamsi fides non accedat : 

tamen ignoratus aut repudiatus salu- fides autem locum habere nequit 

tern non adirnit, dummodo quispiam in iis qui negant et impugnant 

coena Domini et baptismo utatur ; directe media salutis divinitus iii- 

adhibitis enim istis divinitus ordi- stituta. ' Abr. Calov. contr. Socin. 

natis instrumentis effectum sequi torn. i. part 2. p. 251. 

io The Introduction. 

that I know of, ever teach that the use of the outward Sacrament 
is of any avail without inward faith and repentance, or entire 
obedience. Our Church at least, and, I think, all Protestant 
churches have abundantly guarded against any one's resting in 
the bare outward work. The danger therefore on this side is 
very slight in comparison. For what if a man should erroneously 
suppose that upon his worthy receiving he obtains pardon for 
past sins, and grace to prevent future, will not this be an 
encouragement to true repentance, without which he can be no 
worthy receiver, and to watchfulness also for the time to come, 
without which the Divine grace can never have its perfect work] 
Not that I would plead for any pious mistake, (were it really a 
mistake,) but I am answering an objection ; and shewing, that 
there is no comparative force in" it. Were the persuasion I am 
pleading for really an error, reason good that it should be 
discarded : religion wants not the assistance of pious frauds, 
neither can it be served by them. But as we are now supposing 
it doubtful on which side the error lies, and are arguing only 
upon that supposition, it appears to be a very clear case, that 
religion would suffer abundantly more by an error on the left 
hand, than by an error on the right ; and that of the two 
extremes, profaneness, rather than superstition, is the dangerous 

Add to this, that corrupt nature generally leans to the 
diminishing side, and is more apt to detract from the burden 
of religion than to increase the weight ; and therefore the 
stronger guard ought to be placed there. Men are but too 
inclinable of themselves to take up with low and grovelling 
sentiments of Divine things: and so there is the less need of 
bending Scripture that way, when the words are fairly capable 
of an higher meaning, yea, and require it also, as shall be 
shewn in the sequel. 

If it should be asked, what temptation any serious Christian 
can have to lessen the promises or privileges belonging to the 
Sacraments 1 I answer, that pure good-nature and mistaken 
humanity may often tempt men to be as easy and indulgent as 
possible, in their casuistry, for the relieving of tender consciences, 
and for the quieting the scruples of their brethren. The guides of 
souls are sometimes apt to be over-officious that way, and much 
more than is proper ; like as indulgent parents often ruin their 
children by an excessive fondness, considering their present 
uneasiness more than their future well-being. When Epicurus 
set himself to take off the restraints of religion, no doubt but he 
thought he was doing the most humane and the best-natured 

The Introduction. n 

office imaginable. It had the appearance of it, in some respects, 
(though upon the whole it was altogether the reverse,) and that 
was his chief temptation to it. It is not improbable that the 
same kind of good-nature, ill directed, has tempted many other- 
wise learned and valuable guides to be too indulgent casuists, 
and to comply too far with the humour of the world. Strict 
notions of the Sacraments require as strict observance of the 
same Sacraments, which demands the more intense care, and 
greater abstraction of thought ; all which is irksome and pain- 
ful to flesh and blood : there lies the temptation to low and 
diminishing conceptions of the Sacraments, both in clergy and 

But are there not temptations likewise to an over-scrupulous 
severity 1 Undoubtedly there are. Sometimes education, temper, 
prejudice ; sometimes indiscreet zeal, or a spice of enthusiasm : 
but in the general, and for the most part, the making religion 
bend to the humours and fashions of the world is the sin which 
most easily besets us ; and therefore there it is that we ought to 
appoint the double guard. To conclude this article, all extremes 
are wrong, and it may require some care and good discernment 
to observe in every instance the golden mean : but still there 
may be greater sin and danger on one side than on the other ; 
and I have thought it of some moment to determine thus briefly, 
to which of the extremes we may, in our circumstances, most 
securely and wisely lean. 

IV. There is another consideration very proper to be hinted 
here in the entrance, relating to the prejudice often done to our 
venerable Sacraments, by representing them under the detracting 
or diminishing name of positive duties : as if they were to be 
considered as duties only, rather than religious rites in which 
God bears a part ; or as if that part which belongs to us, and is 
really duty, were a single duty, and not rather a band and cement 
of all duties, or a kind of sponsion and security for the present and 
future performance of the whole duty of man. How this matter 
stands will be seen distinctly in the sequel. But it is proper to hint 
something of it here beforehand, lest the reader, by attending 
to a false light, should set out under a mistake of the main 
question. Let it be previously understood, what it is that we 
assert and maintain, for the removing of prejudices, and for the 
preventing any wrong suspicion, either of our exalting a bare 
external duty above faith, hope, and charity, or of our recom- 
mending any single duty in derogation to the rest. 

i. In the first place therefore, let it be carefully noted, that it 
is not merely a duty of ours, but a sacred rite, (in which God 

12 The Introduction. 

himself bears a part,) that we are labouring to exalt, or rather 
to do justice to. The doctrine of our Church, and of all Chris- 
tian churches, early and late, is much the same with what our 
Homilies teach us : namely, that ' in the Sacraments God em- 
braces us, and offereth himself to be embraced by us ; ' and that 
they ' set out to the eyes, and other outward senses, the in- 
ward workings of God's free mercy, and seal in our hearts the 
promises of God k .' 

A learned writer observes and proves, that a sacrament relates 
to that which ' flows from God to us ; ' and he adds, that ' it is 
a thing neither denied nor forgotten by any, but is evident from 
what the Scriptures teach concerning Baptism and the Lord's 
Supper 1.' Indeed, the Socinian way is to exclude God, as it 
were, out of the Sacraments, and to allow him no part in them, 
but to reduce all to a bare human performance, or positive duty : 
but we have not so learned Christ. We are so far from thinking 
the sacramental transaction to be a bare duty of ours, that we 
conceive there is great use and efficacy in a sacrament, even 
where the recipient performs no duty at all, nor is capable of 
any, as in the case of infants receiving Baptism. It is further 
observable, that Baptism is frequently mentioned together with 
repentance, in the New Testament, as distinct from it ; though 
repentance alone, as it signifies or implies entire obedience, fully 
expresses all that is properly and merely duty on our part. 
A plain sign that Baptism, as a sacrament, carries more in the 
idea of it than the consideration of bare duty, and that it comes 
not, in its whole notion, under the head of duties, but of rites, 
or contracts, or covenants, solemn transactions between God 
and man. God bears his part in it, as well as we ours : and 
therefore it is looked upon as distinct from bare duties, and 
spoken of accordingly. 

I suppose it might be on these and the like considerations, 
that some Divines have conceived, that a sacrament, properly, 
is rather an application of God to men, than of men to God. 
Mr. Scandret, distinguishing a sacrament, according to its pre- 
cise formality, from a sacrifice, observes, that it is ' an outward 
visible sign of an invisible grace or favour from God to man m .' 

k Hoinily on the Common Prayer esse quasi manus Dei quibus is nobis 

and Sacraments. offert et confert quod a fide nobis 

1 Towerson on the Sacraments, p. petitur et accipitur.' Voss. de Sa- 

12. Vossius, to the same purpose, cram. Vi et Effic. p. 252. vol. vi. 

says : ' Quemadmodum fides est quasi Opp. 

manus nostra, qua nos quaerimus et m Scandret, Sacrifice of the Divine 

accipimus : sic verbum et sacramenta Service, p. 54. 

The Introduction. 13 

And Dr. Eymer takes notice, that, according to our Church 
Catechism, ' a sacrament is not supposed, in its most essential 
part, an application made by men to God, but one made by 
God to man. . . A gracious condescension of God's, by which he 
converses with men, and exhibits to them spiritual blessings, 
&c. . . God's part is indeed the whole that is strictly and pro- 
perly sacramental : the outward and visible signs exhibited 
are in effect the voice of God, repeating his promise of that 
inward and spiritual favour 11 .' Dr. Towerson long before had 
observed, that there is a difficulty as to ' shewing that a sacra- 
ment relates equally to that which passeth from us to God, 
and that it imports our duty and service .' He conceived no 
difficulty at all, as to God's part in a sacrament ; that was 
a clear point : but he thought it not so easy to prove, that 
the strict and proper sense of the word sacrament includes 
man's part at all. However, it is very certain that the whole 
transaction, in the case of adults, is between two parties, and 
that the application is mutual between God and man. And 
this must be acknowledged particularly in the Eucharist, by 
as many as do allow of a Consecration-prayer, and do admit 
that service to be part of our religious worship, as also to be 
a federal rite. But from hence may appear how widely they 
mistake who consider a sacrament as a bare human performance, 
a discharge of a positive duty on man's part, and nothing more, 
throwing out what belongs to God, and what is most strictly 
sacramental. It is sinking or dropping the noblest and most 
essential part of the idea, and presenting us with a very lame 
and insufficient account of the thing. But a more minute 
explication of this matter, together with the proofs of what 
we maintain, will come in hereafter : all I intended here was 
only to give the reader some previous conception of the state 
of the main question, that he may understand the more clearly 
what we are about. 

2. Next, I must observe, that that part in a sacrament which 
is really ours, and which, so far as concerns adults, is properly 
duty, is yet such a duty as is supposed to comprehend, one way 
or other, all duty : for receiving worthily (as shall be shewn in 
its place) implies present repentance, a heart turned to God 
and to universal obedience, and a serious resolution so to abide 
to our life's end. It has been thought somewhat strange, by 
those who have imbibed wrong notions of the case, that all 
Christian privileges should be supposed to follow a single duty, 

11 Eymer, General Representation of Revealed Religion, pp. 286, 287. 
Towerson on the Sacraments, p. 12. 

14 The Introduction. 

when they really belong to the whole system of duties. But 
when it is considered, that these privileges are never conceived 
to be annexed to this single duty, in any other view, or upon 
any other supposition, but as it virtually carries in it (or in the 
idea of worthy reception) all duty, the main difficulty will 
vanish ; for it may still be true, that those Christian privileges 
go along with the whole system of duties, and with nothing 
short of it. We never do annex all Christian privileges to 
this single duty, but as this duty is conceived, for the time 
being, to contain all the rest ; for that we take to be implied 
in receiving worthily. Whether we are right in interpreting 
worthy reception in so comprehensive a sense, is not now the 
question, but may be considered in its place : all I am con- 
cerned with here is to ward off a charge of inconsistency, with 
respect to our doctrine on this head. 

But to shew the weakness of the charge yet more plainly, let 
the same objection be urged in a very common case of oaths 
to a government, or of subscription to articles, to which many 
State-privileges and Church-privileges are ordinarily annexed. 
What, may some say, shall all those privileges be given, merely 
for the labour of repeating an oath, or of writing a name 1 No, 
certainly : the outward work is the least and the lowest part 
of what the privileges are intended for, if it be any part 
at all, in a strict sense. The privileges are intended for persons 
so swearing, or so subscribing, upon a presumption that such 
oath carries in it all dutiful allegiance to the sovereign, and 
that such subscription carries in it all conformity in faith and 
doctrine to the Church established. Of the like nature and 
use are our sacramental ties and covenants. They are supposed, 
when worthily performed, to carry in them all dutiful allegiance 
to God, and a firm attachment to Christ ; a stipulation of a 
good conscience, and, in a word, universal righteousness, both 
as to faith and manners P : all which is solemnly entered into 
for the present, and stipulated for the future, by every sincere 
and devout communicant. To be short, repentance, rightly 
understood, and a due attendance on the Sacraments, taken 

P What Tertullian observes of the audientis intinctio est, metus integer, 

sacrament of Baptism is justly ap- deinde quoad Dominum senseris, 

plicable to both Sacraments : ' La- fides sana, conscientia semel poeni- 

vacrum illud obsignatio est fidei, tentiam amplexata. Ceterum, si ab 

quae fides a poenitentiae fide in- aquis peccare desistimus, necessitate, 

cipitur et commendatur. Non ideo non sponte innocentiam induimus.' 

abluimur ut delinquere desinamus, Tertull. de Poenit. cap. vi. p. 125. 

sed quia desiimus, quoniam jam Kigali, 
corde loti sumus. Haec enim prima 

The Introduction. 15 

together, do in our account make up the whole system of 
Christian practice for the time being : therefore in annexing 
all Gospel-privileges to worthy receiving, we do not annex 
them to one duty only, but to all, contained, as it were, or 
summed up (by the supposition) in that one. All the mistake 
and misconception which some run into on this head, appears 
to be owing to their abstracting the outward work from the 
inward worthiness supposed to go along with it, and then calling 
that a single duty, which at best is but the shell of duty in 
itself, and which, in some circumstances, (as when separate 
from a good heart,) is no duty at all, but a grievous sin, a 
contempt offered to the body and blood of Christ, and highly 
provoking to Almighty God. 

Thus far I have taken the liberty of premising a few things 
in the entrance ; not for the anticipating what I am hereafter to 
prove, but for the removing those prejudices which appeared 
to lie in the way. And now I proceed, with God's assistance, 
to what I intend upon the subject of the Eucharist, otherwise 
styled the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or the Holy 

1 6 The Ancient Names of CH. I. 


Of tJie most noted or most considerable Names under which the 
Holy Communion hath been anciently spoken of. 

BEFORE I come directly to treat of the thing, it may be 
proper to observe something of the names it has anciently 
gone under : which I shall endeavour to range in chronological 
order, according to the time when each name may be supposed 
to have come up, or first to have grown into vogue. 

A. D. 33. Breaking of Bread. 

The oldest name given to this holy ceremony, or religious ser- 
vice, seems to have been that of ' breaking bread,' taken from what 
the disciples saw done by our Lord in the solemnity of the insti- 
tution. I choose to set the date according to the time of the first 
clear instance a we have of it, rather than according to the time 
when St. Luke related it in his history ; because very probably 
he followed the style of those who then celebrated it. St. Luke 
in his history of the Acts, speaking of the disciples, says : ' They 
continued steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine and fellowship, 
and in breaking of bread, and in prayersV The circumstances 
of the text plead strongly for interpreting, it of the Holy Commu- 
nion : and the Syriac version (which is of great antiquity) renders 
it ' breaking of the Eucharist c ;' which is some confirmation 
of the same construction. A little lower, in the same chapter, 

a I said, first clear instance ; be- yet since it is a disputed construc- 

cause though Luke xxiv. 30, 35 tion, and such as cannot be ascer- 

has been understood of the Eucha- tained, I call that instance not clear, 

rist by some ancients, and more but pass it off as none, because it is 

moderns, (Romanists especially,) and doubtful. 

I see no absurdity in the interpre- b Acts ii. 42. 

tation, nor anything highly im- c The same phrase occurs in the 

probable, or that could give just Recognitions, lib. vi. n. 15 : ' Euclia- 

advantage to the Romish cause with ristiam frangens cum eis.' 
respect to communion in one kind ; 

CH. i. the Holy Communion. 17 

mention is again made of the disciples, as ' continuing daily in 
the temple, and breaking bread from house to house d ;' or 
rather ' in a house,' set apart for holy uses 6 . 

St. Luke a third time takes notice of the ' breaking of bread :' 
where also the Syriac version renders as before, ' breaking of 
the Eucharist.' The circumstances confirm it : it was on the 
' first day of the week/ and St. Paul is observed to have 'preached 
unto them.' St. Paul also himself seems to allude to this 
name, when speaking of this Sacrament he says, ' The bread 
which we break, is it not the Communion f V &c. They who 
would see more concerning this name may consult, besides com- 
mentators, the authors referred to at the bottom of the page?. I 
may just observe, by the way, that scruples have been raised 
against the construction here given ; and some have thought 
that the texts might possibly be interpreted either of a love- 
feast, or else of a common meal. I think, very hardly, and not 
without some violence. However, even Whitby and Wolfius, 
who appear to hesitate upon Acts ii. 42, 46, yet are positive 
enough with respect to Acts xx. 7, as relating to the Eucharist : 
and since there is no ground for scruple, excepting only that the 
Romanists make an ill use of this construction, and that may 
easily be obviated a better way n , I look upon the construction 
here given as sufficiently supported. And it is some confirmation 
of it, that Ignatius, of the apostolical times, makes use of the 
same phrase of ' breaking bread,' where he is plainly speaking of 
this holy Sacrament 1 . 

d Acts ii. 46. Our translation in f I Cor. x. 16. 

the phrase ' from house to house' f Casauboii. ad Annal. Eccles. 

(KOT' olKov) follows Beza, who renders Exerc. xvi. p. 378, alias p. 528. 

' domatim, ' and has been found fault Buxtorf de Coena Domini, pp. 312, 

with by Scaliger, Mede, Beveridge, 313. Suicer. Thesaur. in voc. KKaais, 

and Cave, referred to in Wolfius Cur. p. 105. Julian. Vorstii Philolog. 

Crit. pag. 1048. Compare Johnson's Sacr. part. ii. p. 200. Towerson on 

Unbloody Sacrifice, vol. ii. p. 98. the Sacraments, p. 166. 

e ' Erant autem privata ilia virfpfa u Vid. Casaubon. ad Annal. 

loca a Judaeis semper sacris usibus Eccl. Exercit. xvi. n. 48. p. 

destinata ; saltern ex quo Daniel 379. 

propheta ascendisse in coenaculum ' "Ei/a apron K\uvTes. Ignat. ad 

ad orandum diceretur.' Pearson, Ephes. cap. xx. p. 19. 
Lect. in Act. Apost. p. 31. 

1 8 The Ancient Names of CH. I. 

A. D. 57. Communion. 

The name of Communion has been long famous, and was 

undoubtedly taken from St. Paul's account of this Sacrament, 
where he teaches that the effect of this service is the Communion 
of the body and blood of Christ k . He does not indeed directly 
call the Sacrament by that name, as others have done since he 
was signifying what the thing is, or what it does, rather than how 
it was then called 1 . But as his account gave the first occasion 
for the name of Communion, I thought it not amiss to date it 
from thence. I find not that this name became frequent in the 
earlier centuries : the Canons called apostolical are of doubtful 
age. The Roman clergy, in a letter to the clergy of Carthage, 
make use of the name Communion in the time of St. Cyprian m , 
that is, about the middle of the third century. But in the age 
next following, it became very common, both in the Greek and 
Latin Fathers. The Spanish Fathers, in the Council of Elvira, 
(A.D. 305), make use of it more than forty times : the Councils 
of Aries and of Ancyra (in 314 and 315) made use of the same. 
The Council of Nice, in the year 325, speaks of the same Sacra- 
ment under the name of Communion 11 , in their thirteenth Canon. 
Hilary, about the middle of the same century, styles it sometimes 
the Communion of the Holy Body, sometimes the Sacrament of 
the Holy Communion, sometimes the Communion of the everlast- 
ing Sacraments . A little later in the same century, Basil some- 
times has the single word Communion P to denote the Eucharist : 
at other times he calls it the Communion of the good Thing, or of 

k i Cor. x. 16. Cyprian. Epist. ii. p. 8. Bened. 

1 'Non appellat Paulus Coenam ed. 

Domini Communionem tanquam pro- n Koivuvtas ird\iv T\>x<i>v. Concil. 

prio ejus nomine ; sed vim et effica- Nicaen. can. xiii. p. 330. Harduin. 
ciam Sacramenti hujus exprimens, Hilarius Pictavens. pp. 169, 223, 

ait earn esse communionem, sive 740. edit. Bened. 
participationem corporis Christi.' P Koivtaviav oticoi KaTtx ovrfs > fy>' 

Casaubon. Exercit. xvi. n. 47. p. eavruiv f*f.Ta.\a.n$d.vov<nv. fv > AA|oj'- 

361. Spia 8e Kal tv Alyvirrcf eicaffTos teal 

m ' Si qui in hanc tentationem in- rwv iv \aa> reAoiWcop, &>s M -rb 

ciderunt, coeperint apprehendi infir- irXfiarov, Koivwv'iav ev T< olicta 

mitate, et agant poeiiitentiam facti avrov, /cat ore ftov\tTai fisraAa^Saj'et 

sui, et desiderent communionem, 81' tavrov. Basil. Epist. xciii. p. 

utique subveniri eis debet ' &c. Apud 187. edit. Bened.; alias Epist. 289. 

CH. I. the Holy Communion. 19 

the 'Sovereign GoocK I need not descend to lower Fathers, 
amongst whom the name became very frequent : Suicer r has col- 
lected their testimonies, observing withal the several accounts 
which they gave of the name, all reducible to three, i. The Sacra- 
ment is so called because of the communion we therein hold with 
Christ and with each other. 2. Because we are therein made part- 
ners of Christ's kingdom. 3. Because it is a religious banquet, 
which we partake of in common with our fellow Christians. 

A. D. 57. Lord's Supper. 

I am willing to set down the name of Lord's Supper as a 
Scripture name, occurring in St. Paul's Epistles 8 ; which appears 
to be the most prevailing opinion of learned Protestants. Not 
that I take it to be a clear point at all, or so much as capable of 
being proved : but I incline rather to those, both ancients and 
moderns, who interpret that place of the love-feast, kept in imi- 
tation of our Lord's Last Supper, which was previous to the 
original Eucharist. Thus much however is certain, that in the 
apostolical times the love-feast and the Eucharist, though distinct, 
went together, and were nearly allied to each other, and were 
both of them celebrated at one meeting. Without some such 
supposition as that, it was next to impossible to account for 
St. Paul's quick transition, in that chapter, from one to the 
other. Whether, therefore, Lord's Supper in that chapter sig- 
nifies the love-feast only, or the Eucharist only, or both together, 
one thing is clear and unquestionable, that they were both but 
different parts of the same solemnity, or different acts of the 
same meeting : and there is no occasion to be scrupulously nice 
and critical in distinguishing to which of the parts the name 
strictly belongs *. 

i Kotveevia rov ayadov. Epist. tius inquirere non est opus : sive 

Canon, prima ad Amphiloch. p. enim Christianomm Agapae, sive 

272. Epist. secuncla, p. 293. ipsa Eucharistia significetur, nil in- 

r Suicer. Thesaur. in Koivdivia. terest, dummodo concedatur (quod 

Conf. Casaubon. Exercit. xvi. n. iiulla prorsus ratione iiegari potest) 

47. p. 361, &c., alias 504, &c. EucharistiaecelebrationemcumAga- 

8 i Cor. xi. 20. pis esse conjunctam.' Sam. Basnag. 

1 ' Quid rei sit coena haec, accura- Annal. torn. ii. p. 296. 

C 2 

2O The Ancient Names of CH. i. 

Maldonate, the Jesuit, in his Contents upon Matt. xxvi. 26, 
took upon him to reproach the Protestants in an unhandsome 
manner, for speaking of the Eucharist under the name of a 
Supper ; Avhich he thought irreverent, and not wan-anted by 
Scripture, antiquity, or sound reason u . The learned Casaubon 
some time after appeared in behalf of the Protestants x , and 
easily defended them, as to the main thing, against the injurious 
charge. Albertinus, long after, searched with all diligence into 
ancient precedents and authorities for the name, and produced 
them in great abundance y, more than sufficient to confute the 
charge of novelty, rashness, or profaneness on that head. The 
truth of the matter seems to be. that though there is no clear 
proof that the name of Supper is a Scripture name, yet some 
Fathers (as high as the fourth century) thought that it was, so 
understanding i Cor. xi. 20. And many interpreters of good 
note have followed them in it. Indeed it does not appear that 
the text was so construed before the latter end of the fourth 
century, or that the name of Lord's Supper was much in use as 
a name for the Eucharist. Irenaeus once has the name of God's 
Supper, but means quite another thing by it z . Tertullian has 
the same a for Lord's Table, referring to i Cor. x. 22, not to 
i Cor. xi. 20. He has also the phrase of Lord's Banquet b , [or 
Lord's Day Banquet,] and Banquet of God c , meaning the love- 
feasts then in use, which he elsewhere styles the Supper of 
Christians d . But St. Basil very plainly interprets Lord's Supper 
in that text of the Eucharist 6 : which even Fronto Ducaeus, in 

u ' Calvinistae sine Scripturae auc- c ' Convivium Dei.' Tertull. de 

toritate, sine veterum auctorum ex- Virgin. Vel. cap. viii. p. 172. 

emplo, sine ratione, nullo judicio, d ' Coena nostra de nomine ratio- 

coenam vocant.' Maldouat. p. 556. nem sui ostendit : id vocatur quod 

x Casaubon. Exercit. xvi. n. 32. dilectio apud Graecos. ' Tertull. 

p. 368, alias 513. Apoll. cap. 39. 

y Albertinus de Eucharistia, lib. i. e "na-irep oi>Sev Koivbv cr/ceCos eVwpe- 

cap. I. trot 6 \6yos eiffcpepeffOat fls TCI ayia, 

1 ' Coena Dei.' Iren. lib. iv. cap. ovrias oi'/Se ra ayta els Kotvbv olitov 

36. p. 279. ed. Bened. en-ire A.tVr#o. . . . /U^JTS rbv Koivbv Se'tir- 

a 'NonpossumuscoenamDeiedere, vov fv Kn\T]aia eafltetv /cat Trivetv, 

et coenam daemoniorum.' Tertullian. /J-^re rb KvpiaKbv Sflirvov fv olnia 

de Spect. cap. xiii. p. 79. Ka6v&pttiit. Basil. Regul. Brev. p. 

b 'Convivium Dominicum.' Ter- 310, p. 525. ed. Bened., alias 657. 

tull. ad Uxor. cap. iv. p. 168. Conf. Theodorit. in i Cor. xi. 20. 

CH. i. the Holy Communion. 21 

his notes upon the place, confesses ; endeavouring at the same 
time to bring off Maldonate as fairly as the matter would bear, 
while, in reality, he yields the main thing, with respect to the 
Fathers, at least. However, it must be owned that Basil is the 
first who directly so interprets the text, and that the Fathers 
were not all of a mind about it, and that the appellation of Supper 
was not very common till after the fourth century ; and that even 
in the later centuries the name of Lord's Supper was a name for 
that supper which our Lord made previous to the Eucharist. 
The third Council of Carthage (A. D. 418) speaks of 'one day 
in the year in which the Lord's Supper was celebrated f :' where 
it is plain that Lord's Supper does not mean the Eucharist, but 
the supper proper to Maundy-Thursday, kept in imitation of our 
Lord's Paschal Supper, previous to the Eucharist. And the like 
is mentioned in the Trullan Council (A. D. 683), in their 2Qth 
Canon?. So that Lord's Supper was not then become a familiar 
name, as now, for the Eucharist, but rather eminently denoted 
the supper previous to it ; either our Lord's own, or that which 
was afterwards observed by Christians as a memorial of it, being 
a kind of love-feast. I shall only add further, that Hilary the 
Deacon (A. r>. 380, or nearly) in his comment upon i Cor. xi. seems 
to dislike the name of supper 1 ', as applied to the Eucharist, and 
therefore could not interpret the text as Basil of that time did. 

A. D. 96. Oblation. 
The name of oblation may, I think, be fairly carried up as 
high as to Clemens of Rome, who upon the lowest computation 
wrote his famous Epistle as early as the year 96. The more 
common date is 70, or thereabout : but a learned and considerate 
writer', who very lately has re-examined the chronology of that 
Epistle, has with great appearance of probability brought it down 
to A. D. 96 : and there I am willing to rest it. 

f Miaj T7jeria$ % (if pas ev fj TO Kvpia- rium Eucharistiae inter coenandum 

Kbv Sflirvov firirf^t'irai. Concil. Car- celebratum, non coenam esse : medi- 

thag. Can. xliv. p. 567. Bevereg. edit, cina enim spiritalis est, quae cum 

s Mias eTTjffiou ^iifpas, tv 77 -rb reverentia degustata, purificat sibi 

iivpiaK^v SeiTrvoc fimt\f7rai. Concil. devotmn.' Pseud. Ambros. in loc. 

Trull. Can. xxix. p. 188. * Lardner, Credibility of Gospel 

k 'Ostendit [Christus] illis myste- Hist, part ii. vol. i. pp. 5062. 

22 " The Ancient Names of CH. i. 

Clemens speaks of the oblations and sacred functions of the 
Church, referring, very probably, to the Eucharistical service k : 
neither can he without some violence be interpreted to mean any- 
thing else. In another place, he still more plainly refers to the 
same, where he says ; ' It would be no small sin in us, should 
we cast off those from the episcopal function, who holily and 
without blame offer the gifts 1 .' Here he expressly speaks of 
gifts offered, (that is, of oblation,) and by sacerdotal hands. The 
gifts were brought to the altar, or communion table, by the 
people, and were recommended to God's acceptance by the offici- 
ating bishop, or presbyter. So there was first a kind of lay 
oblation, and next a sacerdotal oblation of the same gifts to God. 
Those gifts consisted partly of alms to the poor, and partly of 
oblations, properly so called, to the Church ; and out of these last 
was usually taken the matter of the Eucharist, the bread and 
wine m . The oblation, as I before hinted, was twofold ; hence 
the whole service of the Eucharist came to be called the oblation : 
and to communicate, or to administer, in Church language, was 
to offer. There was a third kind of oblation which came up 
afterwards, in the third century : or, to speak more accurately, 
the commemoration, which was always a part of the Eucharistical 
service, came by degrees to be called an oblation, (but not within 
the two first centuries, so far as I can find,) and then commenced 
a kind of third oblation : not a new thing, but an old service 
under a new name. 

k Hdvra rc|ej iroietv 6<f>ti\ofj.fv , . . KOVTO.S ra ScSpo, rijx ftrta-KOTrrjs airo/Bd- 

rds re irpoo-Qopas Kal \firovpyeias ^TTI- \tanev. c. xliv. p. 178. Compare 

re\f7ffdai . . . ol o$v -rots trpoffrtray- Johnson's Unbl. Sacrifice, part i. 

fJ.l"US KCUpOlS TTOlOWTfS TOS TTpO<T<pOpaS pp. 75, 78, &C. 

avriav, evTrp6a5eKToi elffi Kal na.K<ipioi. m See Bingham, Eccles. Antiq. b. 

Clem. Rom. Ep. c. xl. p. 164. edit. xy. ch. i. sect. I, 2. Deylingius, 

Cant. Observ. Miscellan. p. 301. Consti- 

"V'itringa, upon these words, allows tut. Apostol. lib. viii. c. 27, 30. 

that they refer to the Eucharist. L'Arroque, Hist, of the Eucharist, 

'Preceshauddubieintelligunturcum part i. ch. iv. p. 30, &c. 
sacris Eucharistiae, quibus Clemens n Of the third oblation, or three- 

statas horas, ad exemplum sacrorum fold oblation, see L'Arroque, Hist. 

templi, definiri vult.' Vitring. de of the Eucharist, part i. c. 8. Sam. 

Vet. Synag. p. 1115. Conf. Basnag. Basnag. Annal. torn. i. p. 371. 

Annal. vol. i. p. 371. Pfaffius, Dissert, de Oblat. Vet. 

1 'Anapria yap ov fjLiKpa r]fuv corral, Eucharist, pp. 283, 293. 
ecic TOVS amtniTTus Kal daicas 

CH. i. the Holy Communion. 23 

Justin Martyr, though he does not directly call the Eucharist 
by the name of oblation, yet he does obliquely, where he says that 
the oblation of fine flour, under the law, was a type of the bread 
of the Eucharist ; and where he speaks of the Eucharistical ele- 
ments as being offered to GodP. Elsewhere he speaks plainly of 
the lay offering, brought by the people to the administrator Q: and 
I presume he is to be understood of an offering to be presented 
to God, by the hands of the Minister, brought to the Minister in 
order to be recommended by him to the Divine acceptance. 

Irenaeus, of the same century, makes frequent mention of the 
oblation of the Eucharist, understanding by it the whole service 
as performed by clergy and people, according to their respective 
parts or provinces r . He supposes the oblation made to God, 
made by the Church, in and by the proper officers : and though 
the oblation strictly speaking, according to its primary significa- 
tion, means only one part of the service, or two (viz. the people's 
bringing their offerings to the altar, and the administrator's 
presenting the same to God), yet from this part or parts of the 
service, the whole solemnity took the name of the oblation at that 
time, and such name became very common and familiar after- 
wards. For since the very matter of the Eucharist was taken 
out of the oblations received from the people, and solemnly offered 
up afterwards to God by the Ministers, it was very natural to 
give the name of oblation to the whole solemnity. 

Tertullian speaking of the Devil, as imitating the mysteries of 

'H rris ffffj.tSd\ces irpoffipopa ... r ' Novi Testament! novam docuit 
TiVo? -fiv rov aprov TTJS evxaptffrias. oblationem, quam Ecclesia ab Apo- 
Just. Dial. p. 119 Jebb, 22oThirlby. stolis accipiens, in universe mundo 

P Hpoff(l>epo/J.evtav avrqi Qvaitav, rov- offert Deo, ei qui alimenta nobis 

rt<rrt rov aprov TTJS fvxapio-rias, ft:a ' praestat, primitias suorum munerum' 

rov TTorTjpiov 6(j.oi<as rrjs iv^apiffrias. &c. Iren. lib. iv. c. 17. p. 249. edit. 

Just. Dial. p. 1 20 Jebb, alias 220. Bened. ' Ecclesiae oblatio, quam 

1 "Eireira irpofffpfperai ry irpoe- Dominus docuit offerri in universe 
(Tram riav ao'f\tp{ai' &pros teal ifOT^piov mundo, purum sacrificium repertum 
u'SaTos Kal Kpd[i.a.ros, ical ovros AaiScbf, est ' &c. ' Non genus oblationum 
atvov Kal 56av r$ irarpl &c. reprobatum est : oblationes enim et 

"Apros irpoffQeperat, Kal olvos Kal illic, oblationes autem et hie.' p. 250. 

uSoip. Kal o irpofffrlas eii^as opo'icas ' Hanc oblationem Ecclesia solam 

Kal fvxapHrrlas, O'CTTJ Suva/j-ts avrtf, puram offert fabricator!, offerens ei 

avaTre/j.irfi, Kal 6 \abs '?reii!f)rj / u?, Ae- cum gratiarum actione, ex creatura 

ytav rb 'A^v. Just. Mart. Apol. i. ejus.' p. 251. 
pp. 96, 98. 

24 The Ancient Names of CH. i. 

the Church, takes notice, among other things, of his instructing 
his votaries to baptize and to celebrate the oblation of bread 8 : as 
much as to say, that they also had their Eucharist in their way; 
oblation being here the name for the whole service. In another 
place he uses the single word 'offer, 'for the whole action of admi- 
nistering and receiving the Communion * Elsewhere he makes 
mention of oblations for the dead ; and at the anniversaries of 
the martyrs u : and by oblations he could intend nothing but the 
Eucharistical solemnities celebrated on those days*. 

We have seen proofs sufficient of the name of oblation for the 
two first centuries. But it is observable, that all this time we 
meet only with oblation of gifts, or first fruits, or of bread, 
wine, or the like : no oblation of Christ's body, or blood, or of 
Christ absolutely, as we shall find afterwards. Hence it is, that 
some very learned men have thought that, according to the 
ancients, the oblation was considered always as previous to con- 
secration, and that the elements were offered in order to be con- 
secrated y : which indeed is true according to that sense of oblation 
which obtained for two centuries and a half ; but a new sense, 
or new application of the word, or name, came in soon after, and 
so it will here be necessary to distinguish times. 

I shall now pass on to Cyprian, to shew how this matter stood, 
upon the change of language introduced in his time. We shall 
find him plainly speaking of the offering Christ's body and blood 2 . 

'Tinguit et ipse quosdam.. .. most ancient Church-writers, not as 

celebrat et panis oblationem.' Ter- consecrated, but as presented, and 

tull. de Praescript. c. xl. p. 216. offered (whether by the people, as 

* ' Ubi ecclesiastic! ordin is non est the custom was, to him that minis- 
consessus, et offers, et tinguis, et tered, or by him that ministered, to 
sacerdos es tibi solus.' Tertull. de God) to be consecrated.' Thorn- 
Exhort. Cast. c. vii. p. 522. Conf. dike, Relig. Assembl. p. 379. 'Con- 
de Veland. Virg. c. ix. p. 178. secrationi autem oblationem prae- 

u 'Oblationes pro defunctis, pro positam olim fuisse. adeo perspi- 

natalitiis annua die facimus.' Ter- cuum ex veterum dictis, liturgiisque 

tun, de Coron. c. iii. p. 102. Conf. antiquissimis, maxime Graecis. esse 

de Exhort. Cast. c. xi. p. 523. arbitramur, ut nihil clarius esse pos- 

T See Bingham, book xxiii. ch. 3. sit.' Pfaff. Fragm. Iren. in praefat. 
sect. 12, 13. Deylingius, Observat. * ' Obtulit [Dominus] hoc idem 

Miscellan. p. 95. quod Melchisedech obtulerat, id est 

y ' It is manifest, that it is called panem et vinum, suum scilicet cor- 

an oblation, or sacrifice, in all litur- pus et sanguinem.' Cyprian. Ep. 

gies, according to the style of the Ixiii. p. 105. edit. Bened. 'Unde 

CH. i. the Holy Communion. 25 

This must be understood of an oblation subsequent to consecration, 
not in order to it : for Christ's body and blood, -whether real or 
symbolical, are holy, and could want no sanctifi cation or consecra- 
tion. He further seems to speak of offering Christ himself 8 , in 
this Sacrament, unto God, but under the symbols of consecrated 
bread and wine. That may be his meaning : and the meaning is 
good, when rightly apprehended ; for there was nothing new in 
it but the language, or the manner of expression. What the 
elder Fathers would have called, and did call, the commemorating 
of Christ, or the commemorating his passion, his body broken, or 
blood shed ; that Cyprian calls the offering of Christ, or of his 
passion, &c., because, in a large sense, even commemorating is 
offering, as it is presenting the thing or the person so com- 
memorated, in the way of prayer and thanksgiving, before God. 
I do not invent this account for the clearing a difficulty, but I take 
it from Cyprian himself, whose own words shew that the Eucha- 
ristical commemoration was all the while in his mind b , and that 
that was all he meant by the oblation which he there speaks of, 
using a new name for an old thing. I shall shew in due time, 
that the later Fathers who followed Cyprian's language in this 
particular, and who admitted this third oblation (as some have 
called it) as well as he, yet when they came to explain, inter- 
preted it to mean no more than a solemn commemoration, such 
as I have mentioned. 

I must further observe, that though Cyprian sometimes ad- 
vances this new kind of language, yet elsewhere he follows the 
more ancient way of speaking, and understands oblation as other 

apparet sanguinem Christi non of- 109. ' Quia passionis ejus mentionem 

ferri, si desit vinum calici ' &c. p. in sacrificiis omnibus facimus (passio 

107. est enim Domini, sacrificium quod 

a ' Nam si Jesus Christus Dominus offerimus) nihil aliud quam quod 

et Deus noster ipse est summus sa- ille fecit, facere debemus.' p. 109. 
cerdos Dei Patris, et sacrificium b ' Calix qui in commemorationem 

Patri seipsum primus obtulit, et [alias, commemoration e]e jus offertur.' 

hoc fieri in sui commemorationem p. 104. 'Quotiescunqueergo calicem 

praecepit, utique ille sacerdos vice in commemorationem Domini et pas- 

Christi vere fungitur, qui id quod sionis ejus offerimus, id quod con- 

Christus fecit, imitatur, et sic inci- stat Dominum fecisse, faciamus.' p. 

piat offerre secundum quod ipsum 109. 
Christum videat obtulisse.' Ibid. p. 

26 The Ancient Names of CH. I. 

Fathers before him. had done. Thus, when he speaks of the sacrifice 
offered in the Eucharist by the poor , he means it of the lay obla- 
tion which was previous to consecration; as also when he speaks of 
the clergy's presenting the oblations of the people d , he is to be 
understood of the first and second oblations, both of them previous 
to consecration. And when he observes, that an oblation cannot 
be sanctified" where the Spirit is not given 6 , he uses the word 
oblation for what was antecedent ; and it amounts to the same 
as if he had said, that such an oblation could not be consecrated, 
could not be made the body and blood of Christ. But enough 
hath been said of the name of oblation in this place : the thing 
will be more distinctly considered hereafter. 

A. D. 104. Sacrament. 

The name of Sacrament, as applied to the Eucharist, though 
no Scripture name, yet certainly is of great antiquity. The 
younger Pliny, in his Letter to the Emperor Trajan, will afford 
us a good argument of it, in what he reports of the Christians, 
and from the Christians, as meeting on a certain day (the Lord's 
Day) and binding themselves by a 'Sacrament' to commit no 
wickedness, but to lead good lives f . As Pliny there reported 
what the Christians had told him, it is reasonable to judge, 
that they had made use of the word Sacrament to him, which 
they understood in the Christian sense, however Pliny or Trajan 
might take it : and so this testimony will amount to a probable 
proof of the use of the name of Sacrament among the Christians 
of that time. That the name, as there used, is to be understood 

c 'Partem de sacrificio quod pau- quasi Deo dicere secum invicem : 

per obtulerit, sumis.' Cypr. de Op. seque sacramento non in scelus ali- 

et Eleem. p. 242. quod obstringere, sed ne furta, ne 

d ' Qui communicando cum lapsis, latrocinia, ne adulteria committe- 

et offerendo oblationes eorum' &c. rent, ne fidem fallerent, ne tleposi- 

Ep. xxviii. p. 38. turn appellati abnegarent : quibus 

c ' Nee oblatio illic sanctificari pos- peractis, morem sibi discedendi fu- 

sit, ubi Spiritus Sanctus non est.' isse, rursusque coeundi ad capien- 

Ep. Ixiv. p. 112. dum cibum, promiscuum tamen et 

f ' Adfirmabant autem, hanc fuisse innoxium.' Plin. Epist. xcvii. lib. 

summani vel culpae suae, vel erroris, x. p. 819. ed. Amstel. Conf. Ter- 

quod essent soliti, stato die, ante tullian. Apol. c. ii. pp. 24, 25. 

lucem convenire, cannenque Christo Lugd. 

CH. i. the Holy Communion. 27 

of the Eucharist, is a very clear case, from all the circumstances 
of the account. I know not how a late learned and judicious 
writer came to understand it of the Sacrament of Baptism". The 
generality of the best learned men h interpret it of the Eucharist, 
and with very good reason : for the account refers to what the 
whole assembly were wont to do, at the same time ; they could 
not all come to receive Baptism, though they might to receive 
the Eucharist. Then the mention of the Sacrament, as taken in 
the 'antelucan' meetings, tallies exactly with Tertullian's account 
of the Eucharist, as we shall see presently : besides that the 
hint given of the love-feast, as following soon after, confirms the 
same thing*. 

I go on then to Tertullian, who makes express mention of the 
Sacrament of the Eucharist, as received in his time, but with 
some difference, as to the circumstances, from the original Eu- 
charist of our Lord's own celebrating k . For that (he observes) 
was after supper, this before daylight, fasting : in that, the com- 
pany helped one another, or every man took his part from the 
table 1 ; in this, the Bishop or Presbyter in person gave the bread 
and cup to each communicant. But what I have principally to 
take notice of here is the use of the phrase, Sacrament of the 
Eucharist, conformable to the like phrases, which the same 
author makes use of to denote Baptism, calling it the Sacrament 
of water 111 , and Sacrament of sanctifi cation 11 . In the same cen- 
tury, Cyprian calls the Eucharist the Sacrament of the cup ; 
and elsewhere, the Sacrament of the Lord's passion and of our 

B Dr. Wall, Inf. Bapt. part ii. praesidentium sumimus.' Tertull. de 

chap. ix. p. 396, third edition. Coron. c. iii. p. 102. 

h Vid. Bevereg. Vindic. Can. p. ' Luke xxii. 1 7. See Archbishop 

199. Tentzel. Exercit. Select, part. Potter on Ch. G. p. 259, edit. 3rd. 
ii. p. 127. Vitringa, de Vet. Syna- m ' Sacramentum aquae.' Tertull. 

gog. p. 1116. Renaudotius Liturg. de Bapt. c. i. p. 224. c. xii p. 

Orient, torn. i. pp. 5, 6. Bingham, 229. 
xv. 7. 8. n ' Sacramentum sanctificationis.' 

1 See Bingham, book xv. c. 7. Ibid. c. iv. p. 225. 
sect. 8. o 'Sacramentum calicis.' Cyprian. 

k ' Eucharistiae Sacramentum, et de Lapsis, p. 189. 

in tempore victus, et omnibus man- P 'Sacramentum Dominicae passio- 

datum a Domino; etiam antelucanis nis, etredemptionisnostrae.' Cyprian. 

coetibus,nec de aliorum manu quam Ep. 63. 

28 The Ancient Names of CH. i. 

If it should now be asked, in what precise meaning the name 
of Sacrament was thus anciently applied to the Eucharist ; as the 
word Sacrament is of great latitude, and capable of various sig- 
nifications, (some stricter and some larger,) I know of no certain 
way of determining the precise meaning of the name, as here 
applied, but by considering what was meant by the thing. Gerard 
Vossiusl has perhaps given as clear and accurate an account of 
the word Sacrament as one shall any where meet with : but after 
all, I am of opinion, that it is not the name which can here add 
any light to the thing, but the thing itself must be first rightly 
understood, in order to settle the true and full import of the 
name. When it is applied to Baptism and the Eucharist, it must 
be explained by their common nature, being a general name 
for such a certain number of ideas as go to make up their general 
nature or notion. A collection of those several ideas is put 
together in the definition given in our Church Catechism. The 
like had been endeavoured before, in our Twenty-fifth Article : 
and that is again digested into a more technical form, by Bishop 
Burnet in his Exposition 1 ". His definition may be looked upon 
as a good summary account of what our Church, and the Pro- 
testant churches abroad, and the primitive churches likewise, 
believed concerning Baptism and the Eucharist in common : the 
particulars of their faith, so far, is therein collected into one large 
complex idea, and for conveniency is comprised in the single word 
Sacrament. And yet it must be observed, that this word Sacrament, 
as applied to those two religious rites, admits of a threefold accep- 
tation in Church writers : sometimes denoting barely the outward 
sign of each, sometimes the thing signified, and sometimes both 
together, the whole action, service, or solemnity s . 

The Socinians, observing that the received sense of the word 
Sacrament is against their whole scheme, have often expressed 
their dislike of it. Smalcius particularly complains of it, as an 
unscriptural name, and besides, barbarous Latin, and leading to 
superstition and idolatry ; and therefore he moves to have it 

<i Vossius de Sacram. Vi et Efficacia. Opp. torn. vi. p. 247, &c. 

r Burnet on Art. XXV, pp. 268, 269. 

6 Vid. Lamb. Danaeus. Isag. part. iv. lib. 5. p. 441. 

CH. I. the Holy Communion. 29 

totally laid aside*. He was offended, it seems, at the name, be- 
cause it served to keep up the sense of something mysterious, or 
mystical, of a sign and somewhat signified, viz. grace &c., to which 
he had an aversion. Volkelius, more complaisant with respect to 
the name, turns all his resentment upon the thing, flatly denying 
that the Eucharist is a Sacrament 11 : his reason is, because it 
neither exhibits nor seals any spiritual grace. His master Soci- 
nus had intimated as much before*. The sum is, that the strict 
sense of the Sacrament, as implying an outward sign of an in- 
ward grace, can never suit with their schemes, who allow of no 
inward grace at all. 

I may here note by the way, that while the Socinians reject the 
invisible grace, the Romanists destroy the visible sign, and both 
run counter to the true notion of a Sacrament, by their opposite 
extremes: from whence it is manifest, of what moment it is to pre- 
serve the word Sacrament, and to assert to it its true and full sense. 
For though the word, as here applied, is not in Scripture, yet 
the notion is there, and the general doctrine is there : and the 
throwing that notion, or that general doctrine, under the name of 
Sacranient,is nothing more than collecting several Scripture ideas, 
or Scripture truths, and binding them up together in a single word, 
for the better preserving them, and for the ease and conveniency 
of speech. But as to the proof of those doctrines or those truths, 
I cannot enter into it now, but must reserve it for a more proper 
place, and proceed in the account of ancient names. 

A. D. 107. EucJiarist. 

Another name, as famous as any, is the name Eucharist, signi- 
fying properly thanksgiving or blessing, and fitly denoting this 

1 ' Vox sacramenti, in hac signifi- u ' Satis constat nee alteram appel- 

catione, bavbara, vel saltern sacris lationeni, nimirum sacramentum cor- 

literis incognita est ; ab hominibus poris Christi, veram esse. Si enira 

vero otiosis (qui ceremoniis liujus- haec actio ne sacramentum quidem 

modi nescio quid praeter sacram est, quo pacto, quaeso, corporis 

Scripturamsuperstitiosum.aut etiam Christi sacramentum erit ?' Volkel. 

idololatricum ex parte, tribuere non de Ver. Relig. lib. iv. cap. 22. p. 

sunt veriti) ad tegendum dolum usur- 678. 

pata : praestat igitur aliis nominibus x Socinus de Baptism. Aquae, cap. 

appellari in Christi coetu hanc cere- xiv. 
moniam.' Smalcius o. Frantz. p. 347. 

30 The Ancient Names of CH. i. 

holy service, considered as a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. 
I set the date no higher than Ignatius's Epistles, because there 
it first certainly occurs : though one can make no doubt of its 
having obtained in the apostolical age, when it is considered how 
familiarly Ignatius makes use of ity. Some have thought that 
St. Paul himself led the way as to this name, i Cor. xiv. 16. But 
that construction of the text appears too conjectural to build 
upon, and is rejected by the generality of interpreters ; I think, 
with good reason, as Estius in particular hath manifested upon 
the place. I content myself therefore with running up that 
name no higher than Ignatius's time. 

After him, Justin Martyr 2 , Irenaeus a , Clemens of Alexandria b , 
Origen c , and others, make familiar use of that name, as is well 
known. One may judge how extensive and prevailing that name, 
above any other, anciently was, from this consideration, that it 
passed not only among the Greeks, but among the Orientalists 
also, (as may be seen in the Syriac version before mentioned,) 
and likewise among the Latins ; who adopted that very Greek 
word into their own language ; as is plain from Tertulliaud and 
Cyprian 6 in many places. 

A. D. 1 50. Sacrifice. 

Justin Martyr is the first I meet with who speaks of the 
Eucharist under the name of sacrifice or sacrifices. But he does 
it so often, and so familiarly f , that one cannot but conceive, that 

y Ignatius, Epist. ad Sinyrn. c. 7> THLGIV ratv tdvaiv irpoatyfpofjifwv avrw 

8. ad Philadelph. c. 4. Ovffiuv, Tovretm TOV Itprov TTJS eiixa- 

z Justin. M. Apol. 96. Dialog, pp. piffrias, KOI TOV iroTrjpiov o^o'nas TTJS 

2 2O, 386. Thirlby. ev^apitrrias, irpo\(yei r&re. Just. 

a Irenaeus, pp. 251, 294, 341, 360, Dialog, p. 220, edit. Lond. 
ed. Bened. dvvias &s TrapeScaKfv 'iTjaoOs 6 

b Clem. Alex. Paedag. lib. ii. cap. Xpurrbs ytvevdai, TOVTCO-TIV tvl TTJ 

1. p. 178. ed. Oxon. fvxaptffriq TOV Uprou /col TOV irorr)- 

c Origen. contr. Gels. lib. viii. sect. piov. Ibid. p. 386. 
57. p. 784. ed. Bened. ori fity ovv teal filial ical evx<t- 

d Tertullian. pp. IO2, 135, 215, pur-riai, virb TWV d|iax/ yii>6/, re- 

22O, 562, 570. Kigalt. Aticu p.6va.L (coi tlzpfaroi tlffi rf e<j3 

e Cyprian. Tract, pp. 132, 147, 2.3.C. Buariai, no! avr6s <t>i)fJ.i' ravra yap 

Ep. pp. 34, 37, 38, 39, 117, Il8, 125, n.6va KOI XpiffTiavo'l irapeAajSoi' irotfty, 

190, 191, 223. Ox. edit. nal CTT'}(rti St rrjs Tpo<pr)s avruv 

f Ufpl Se ruv iv iravri r6ir<f v<p' ypas re ical vypas. Ibid. p. 387. 

CH. i. the Holy Communion. 31 

it had been in common use for some time before : and it is the 
more likely to have been so, because oblation (which is near akin 
to it) certainly was, as we have seen above. 

Irenaeus of the same century mentions the sacrifice of the Eu- 
charist more than once ", either directly or obliquely. Tertullian, 
not many years later, does the like h . Cyprian also speaks of 
the sacrifice in the Eucharist, understanding it, in one particular 
passage, of the lay oblation i. This is not the place to examine 
critically what the ancients meant by the sacrifice or sacrifices 
of the Eucharist : it will deserve a distinct chapter in another 
part of this work. But, as I before observed of oblation, that, 
anciently, it was understood sometimes of the lay offering, the 
same I observe now of sacrifice ; and it is plain from Cyprian. 
Besides that notion of sacrifice, there was another, and a prin- 
cipal one, which was conceived to go along with the Eucharistical 
service, and that was the notion of spiritual sacrifice, consisting 
of many particulars, as shall be shewn hereafter : and it was 
on the account of one or both, that the Eucharist had the name 
of sacrifice for the two first centuries. But by the middle of the 
third century, if not sooner, it began to be called a sacrifice, on 
account of the grand sacrifice represented and commemorated in 
it; the sign, as such, now adopting the name of the thing signified. 
In short, the memorial at length came to be called a sacrifice, as 
well as an oblation : and it had a double claim to be so called ; 
partly as it was in itself a spiritual service or sacrifice, and partly 
as it was a representation and commemoration of the high tre- 
mendous sacrifice of Christ God-man. This last view of it, being 

'Ecclesiaeoblatio.quamDominus Tertull. de Orat. c. xiv. pp. 1.35, 136. 

docuit offerri in universe murido, pu- ' Aut aacrificium offertur, aut Dei 

rum sacrificium reputatum est apud sermoadministratur.' DecultuFem. 

Deum' &c. ' Sacrificia in populo, sa- lib. ii. c. n. 

criticia et in ecclesia.' Iren. lib. iv. ' 'Locuples, et dives es, et Dorni- 

c. 18. p. 250. ' Omni autem loco sacri- nicum celebrare te credis, quae cor- 

ficium offeretur ei, et hoc purum." ban omnino non respicis, quae in 

Lib. iv. c. 17. p. 249. Dominicum sine sacrificio venis, 

11 ' Non putant plerique sacrificio- quae partem de sacrificio quod pau- 

rumorationibusinterveniendum. . . . per obtulerit sumis.' Cyprian, de 

Accepto corpore Domini et reser- Op. et Eleemos. p. 242. Bened., 

vato, utrumque salvwn est, et par- alias 223. 
ticipatio sacrificii, et executio oSicii.' 

32 The Ancient Names of CH. I. 

of all the most awful and most endearing, came by degrees to be 
the most prevailing acceptation of the Christian sacrifice, as held 
forth in the Eucharist. But those who styled the Eucharist a 
sacrifice on that account, took care, as often as need was, to ex- 
plain it off to a memorial of a sacrifice rather than a strict or 
proper sacrifice, in that precise view. Cyprian, I think, is the 
first who plainly and directly styles the Eucharist a sacrifice in 
the commemorative view, and as representing the grand sacrifice^. 
Not that there was anything new in the doctrine, but there was 
a new application of an old name, which had at the first been 
brought in upon other accounts. I shall endeavour to set that 
whole matter clear in a chapter below : for the present these few 
hints may suffice, and so I pass on. 

A. D. 1 50. Commemoration, Memorial. 'Ai/d/u^o-tj, MI/JJ/*?/. 

Justin Martyr, if I mistake not, once names the Eucharist a 
commemoration or memorial ; where he takes notice, that the 
Christians offered up spiritual sacrifices, prayers and lauds, in 
the memorial of their food dry and liquid J , that is, in the Eucha- 
rist of bread and wine. I know not how otherwise to construe 
dvdnvrja-is there, but as a name of the whole service. It was 
natural enough, because many of the other names which have been 
used to denominate the whole service, (as breaking bread, obla- 
tion, sacrifice, and Eucharist,) manifestly took their original from 
some noted part of the solemnity, and were at first but partial 
conceptions of it. Now since the commemoration or memorial 
was always a considerable part of the solemnity, (as the learned 
well know,) it is reasonable to suppose, that that also might be 
made use of in like manner, as a name for the whole service. 

I am aware that our excellent Mr. Mede gives a very different 
turn to that passage of Justin, translating it thus : ' In that 
thankful remembrance of their food both dry and liquid, wherein 
also is commemorated the passion which the Son of God suffered 

k ' Passionis ejus raentionein in sa- ' 'ETT' avafj.vf](rei 5e -rfjs rpoQrjs av- 

crificiis omnibus facimus : passio est TJOV frpas re teal vypas, tv y /cat rov 

enim Domini sacrificium quod offeri- irdQovs & Wiroi/fle 5j' avrov 6 &tbs rov 

mus.' Cyprian. Ep. Ixiii. p. 109. &fov nfftvijrcu. Just. Dial. 387. 

CH. I. the Holy Communion. 33 

by himself.' He interprets it of agnizing God as the ' giver of 
our food both dry and liquid m .' But that construction must 
needs appear harsh and unnatural. Justin nowhere else does 
ever speak of the remembrance of our food, but constantly under- 
stands the Eucharistical remembrance or commemoration to refer 
to Christ only, his incarnation and passion, his body and blood 11 : 
nor do I know of any one Father who interprets the memorial of 
the bodily food. Besides, it suits not well with our Lord's own 
account in his institution of the Sacrament, which speaks of the 
remembrance of him, not of the remembrance of our bodily 
food. Add to this, that were the sense of the place such 
as Mr. Mede imagined, Justin would rather have expressed 
it by a thankful remembrance of the Divine goodness in 
giving us our food, than by a thankful remembrance of our 
food, which appears flat and insipid in comparison. Seeing 
then that Mr. Mede's construction of that place in Justin is 
far from satisfactory, I choose to acquiesce in the sense which I 
before mentioned, till I see a better ; understanding the memo- 
rial of food, as equivalent to memorial of Christ's passion, made 
by food, viz. by bread and wine. The word also refers not there 
to memorial, as if there were two memorials, but to the lauds ; 
besides which there was also a memorial of the passion. 

Origen has a passage relating to the Eucharistical memorial, 
where he appears to denominate the whole service by that emi- 
nent part of it . Eusebius styles the Eucharist the memorial 
of our Lord's body and blood P, and also simply a memorial : 
which he observes to have succeeded in the room of sacrifice <J. 
He calls it also the memorial of the sacrifice r , and memorial of 

m Mede, Christian Sacrifice, b. ii. propitium facit hominibus Deum.' 

ch. 5. p. 460. Orig. in Levit. Horn. xiii. p. 255. 

n Vid. Justin Mart. Dial. pp. ed. Bened. 

220, 290. P ToC ff<&fj.aros avrov Kal rov a'1/j.a.- 

' Si referantur haec ad mysterii ros r^v Euseb. De- 

magnitudinem, invenies commemo- monst. Evangel, lib. i. cap. to. 

rationem istam habere ingentis pro- p. 27. 

pitiationis effectum Si respicias 1 MCTJ/UTJV Kal rifiti 1 irapaSovs, avrl 

ad illam commemorationem de qua Ova-las rep < Snji/eK&s irpo<r<j>fpfii/. 

dicit Dominus, hoc facite in meam Ibid. p. 38. Cp. Apost. Const, lib. vi. 

commemorationem, invenias quod cap. 23. 

ista est commemoratio sola, quae r Tovrov Srjra rov dv/j.a,ros r 


34 The Ancient Names of CH. i. 

the grand sacrifice s . I need not descend lower, to fetch in more 
authorities for the use of this name : only, I may just give a hint 
that all those Fathers who interpreted the name sacrifice, as 
applied in such a particular view to the Eucharist, by a memorial 
of a sacrifice, may as reasonably be understood to call the Eucha- 
rist a memorial, as to call it a sacrifice. Those Fathers were 
many, and Chrysostom may be esteemed their chief : who while 
he follows the ordinary language in denominating the Eucharist 
a sacrifice, (considered in its representative view,) yet intimates 
withal, that its more proper appellation, in that view, is a memo- 
rial of a sacrifice *. I may further take notice, that St. Austin 
comes very near to what I have been speaking of, where he calls 
the Eucharist by the name of the sacrament of commemoration, 
or sacramental memorial . To conclude this article, let the 
reader observe and bear in mind, that the names of oblation and 
sacrifice, as applied to the Eucharist in one particular point of 
view, do both of them resolve into the name memorial : and so 
far they are all three to be looked upon as equivalent names, 
bearing the same sense, pointing to the same thing. This obser- 
vation will be of use, when we come to consider the Eucharist in 
its sacrificial view under a distinct chapter below. 

A. D. 249. Passover. 

The name of Passover has been anciently given to the Eu- 
charist, upon a presumption that as Christ himself succeeded 
to the paschal lamb, so the feast of the Eucharist succeeded 
in the room of the paschal feast. Christ is our Passover, 
as the name stands for the lamb x : the Eucharist is our 

MV e'jrl Tpairefyi fKTf\f~iv, Sia <rvfj.p6- in Hebr. cap. x. Hesychius, in 

\(av TOV re <ra>,uaTos avrov, teal TOV Levit. p. 31. Eulogius. apud Phot. 

(Turnpiov OUHO.TOS. Ibid. p. 30. cod. 280. p. 1609. Fulgentius. de 

s T)II> n.vfifi.i)v TOV (JifyaAov OV/JLUTOS. Fide ad Petr. cap. Ix. p. 525. 

Ibid. p. 40. Fragm. 618. Oecumenius, in Hebr. 

1 Ilpoo-tpfponev /j.ei>, oXA* a.vd^.vT}ffiv x. p. 846. Theophylact. in Hebr. 

Trotov/j-eda TOV OOVO.TOV avTov. . . . T^V x. I. p. 971. 

aurV Ovcrtav del iroiov/jitv, fM\\6v Te u ' Sacramentum memoriae." Au- 

a.vap.vriciiv epyadfjif6a. Qu<ria.s. Chry- gustin. contr. Faust, lib. xx. cap. 21. 

sost. in Epist. ad Hebr. cap. x. Horn. p. 348. Compare L'Arroque, Hist, of 

17. p. 856. Compare Theodorit. in the Eucharist, part i. chap. 8. pp. 

Hebr. viii. 4. p. 433. Pseud-Am- 88, 89. 
bros. in Hebr. cap. x. Primasius, * I Cor. v. 7. John i. 29. 

CH. i. the Holy Communion. 35 

Passover, as that same name stands for the feast, service, 
or solemnity. 

Origen seems to have led the way ; and therefore I date the 
notion from his time : not that he speaks so fully to the point 
as some that came after, neither had he precisely the same 
ideas of it ; but he taught more confusedly, what others after 
him improved and cleared. Origen takes notice, that 'if a 
man considers that Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us, 
and that he ought to keep the feast by feeding upon the flesh 
of the Logos, he may celebrate the Passover all his life long, 
passing on to Godwards in thought, word, and deed, abstracted" 
from temporal things v.' I give his sense, rather than a literal 
rendering. Here we may observe, that the Christian Pass- 
over feast, according to him, consists in the eating of the flesh 
of the Logos ; which is certainly done in the Eucharist by 
every faithful receiver, as Origen everywhere allows : but then 
Origen's common doctrine is, that the flesh of the Logos may 
be eaten also out of the Eucharist ; for the receiving spiritual 
nutriment any way, is with him eating the flesh of Christ 2 . 
So that this passage which I have cited from him does not 
make the Eucharist, in particular, or solely, to be the Christian 
paschal feast : but the taking in spiritual food, be it in that 
way or any other, that is the keeping our Passover, according 
to his sense of it. Hilary, of the fourth century, seems directly 
to give the name of Passover to the Christian Eucharist a . 
Nazianzen, a great admirer of Origen, improves the thought, 
applying it directly and specially to the Eucharist, in these 
words : ' We shall partake of the Passover, which even now 

y 'En Se 6 vo-fiffas, on rb ira.ffx.a. z 'Bibereautemdiciinur sanguinem 

Tiniav inrfp r]fj.cav erufJTj Xpurrbs, Kal Christi, non solum sacramentorum 

XP$) fopTafit> effdlovra rfjs ffapitbs -rov ritu, sed et cum sermones ejus reci- 

A.6yov OVK fffriv foe ov iroieT rb irdar- pimus, in quibus vita consistit. Sicut 

Xa, oirtp epfj-yvevfrat Sia&ar-fipta., 810- et ipse dicit, Verba quae locutus 

fiaivtav a.fl ry \o-ytfffj.y Kal iravrl \6yq sum, spiritus et vita est.' Orig. in 

KOI -navy irpd^fi airb rSiv rov j8iou Num. Horn. xvi. p. 334. ed. Bened. 
TTp3.yiJia.riav (ir\ -rbv tbv Kal firl TT]V a 'Judas proditor indicatur, sine 

ir6\iv avjov ffitffovtv. Orig. contr. quo pascha, accepto calice et fracto 

Gels. lib. viii. p. 759. ed. Bened., pane, conficitur. ' Hilar. in Matt, 

alias p. 392. cap. xxx. p. 740. ed. Bened. 

D 2 

36 The Ancient Names of CH. i. 

is but a type, though much more plain than the old one : for 
I am bold to say, that the legal Passover was an obscurer type 
of another typeV 

St. Jerome, who was once Nazianzen's scholar, follows him in 
the same sentiment, styling the Eucharist the true sacrament of 
the Passover, in opposition to the old one . But no one dwells 
more upon that thought, or more finely illustrates it, than the 
great St. Chrysostom in divers places. He asks why our Lord 
celebrated the Passover ] And his answer is, because the old 
Passover was the figure of the future one, and it was proper, 
after exhibiting the shadow, to bring in the truth also upon the 
table d : a little after he says, 'it is our Passover to declare the 
Loi-d's death 6 ,' quoting i Cor. xi. 26. And he adds, that who- 
ever comes with a pure conscience, celebrates the Passover, as 
often as he receives the communion, be it to-day, or to-morrow, 
or at any time whatever f . And he has more in the same place, 
to the same purpose. In another work he speaks thus : ' When 
the sun of righteousness appeared, the shadow disappeared : . . . . 
therefore upon the self -same table both the Passovers were 
celebrated, the typical and the reals.' A little lower, he calls 
the Eucharist the spiritual Passover 11 . Isidorus Pelusiota 
afterwards styles it the Divine and true Passover 1 . And 
St. Austin observes, that the Jews celebrate their Passover in 
a lamb, and we receive ours in the body and blood of the 

b Mtra\rfif/6fi.0a Sf TOW Tacrxa vvv d Chrysost. torn. i. Orat. contr. 

fj.fv rvvtKus erj, ical t ToD 7raAacoD Jud. 3. P- 610. ed. Bened. 

yvfj.v&r(pov rb yap vofJUKov ird<Tx a > e Tldcrxa 8e fan, TO r'bv 

ToA.jUa> Kal Ae'-yw, T'tnrov rinros ?iv xarayy f \\eiv. Ibid. p. 6ll. 

a/j.v5p6r(pos. Nazianz. Orat. Hi. p. f Tldirxa iriT\e?, K'UV aijfj.fpov, K&C 

692. afipiov, /c&v dirortpovv fjLfrdffXfl TTJS 

c ' Postquam typicum pascha fue- Kotvtavias. Ibid. p. 612. 

rat impletum, et agni cames cum 8 'Ei/ avrfj rrj rpairf^ri fKarepov 

apostolis comederat, assumit panem, ylverat traffxa, Kal rb TOV rvwov, nal 

qui confortat cor hominis, et ad rb TTJ? a\ri9flas. Chrysost. de Pro- 

verum paschae transgreditur sacra- dit. Jud. Horn. i. torn. i. p. 383. 

mentum : ut quomodo in praefigura- 'En-' aurf/s rrjs rpatrefos, KOI rb rvTrit(bi> 

tione ejus Melchisedec, summi Dei irdcrxa. vrrtpfypa\l/f, Kal rb a\T]6ii'bv 

sacerdos, panem et vinum offerens trpo(r(9j]Ke. Ibid, 

fecit, ipse quoque veritatem sui cor- h Tb -rrvfVfj.ariKbv ird<rxa. Ibid, 

poris et sanguinis repraesentaret.' ' Tb Oelov nal a.XriQiv'bv iroo-^o. Isi- 

Hierouym. in Matt. cap. xxvi. p. dor. Pelus. lib. iv. Epist. 162. p. 

128. ed. Bened. 504. ed. Paris. 

CH. i. the Holy Communion. 37 

Lord k . These are authorities sufficient for the name of Passover 
as applied to the Eucharist : for like as Baptism is in Scrip- 
ture account the Christian circumcision 1 , so is the Eucharist, 
in Church account at least, the Christian Passover. 

A.D. 385. Mass. Missa. 

There is one name more, a Latin name, and proper to the 
western churches, which may just deserve mentioning, because of 
the warm disputes which have been raised about it ever since 
the Reformation. It is the name mass, in Latin missa; ori- 
ginally importing nothing more than the dismission of a church 
assembly ra . By degrees it came to be used for an assembly, and 
for Church service : so easily do words shift their sense, and 
adopt new ideas. From signifying Church service in general, 
it came at length to denote the Communion service in par- 
ticular, and so that most emphatically came to be called the Mass. 
St. Ambrose is reasonably supposed to be the earliest writer now 
extant who mentions mass in that emphatical sense 11 . Higher 
authorities have been pretended : but they are either from the 
spurious Decretal Epistles, or from liturgical offices of modern 
date in comparison . 

So much for the ancient names of the Sacrament : not that 
I took upon me to number up all, but those only which appeared 
to me most considerable. More may be seen in Hospinian, 
Casaubon, Suicer, or Turretin, collected into one view, with their 
proper authorities. It is time for me now to proceed directly 
to the consideration of the Sacrament itself; in the meanwhile 
hoping that my readers will excuse it, if I have hitherto detained 
them too long in the preliminaries, intended to open and clear 
the way to the main subject. 

k 'Aliud est pascha quod adhuc bon. Exercit. xvi. n. 59. p. 418, 

Jadaei de ove celebrant, aliud autem alias t;82. 

quod nos in corpore et sanguine n ' Missam facere coepi.' Ambros. 

Domini accipimus.' Augustin. contr. Epist. 20. ad Marcellin. p. 853. ed. 

Lit. Petiliani, lib. ii. cap. 37. Bened. 

1 Coloss. ii. n. o Compare Deylingius, Observat. 

m Hence Missa Catechumenorum, Miscellan. pp. 262, 272, &c. Bing- 

and Missa Fidelium. See Cangius's ham, b. xiii. chap. I. 
Glossarium in Missa ; and Casau- 

38 The Institution of CH. n. 

Of the Institution of the Holy Cofrvmunion. 

IT will be proper to begin with the institution of this Sacra- 
ment by Christ our Lord, as recorded by St. Matthew, St. Mark, 
St. Luke, and St. Paul. It is an argument of the great weight 
and importance of it, that we have it four times recorded in the 
New Testament, only with some slight variations, while what 
one or more omit, another supplies. The most complete as well 
as shortest view of the whole may be taken by throwing all into 
one, in some such manner as here follows : 

Matt. xxvi. Mark xiv. Luke xxii. i Cor. xi. 

' The night in which the Lord Jesus was betrayed, as they 
were eating, or did eat, Jesus took bread, and giving thanks, 
blessed it, and brake it, and gave it unto his disciples, and 
said ; Take, eat, this is my body, which is given and broken for 
you ; do this in remembrance of me. After supper likewise, 
having taken the cup, and given thanks, he gave it to them, 
saying, Drink ye all of this, for this cup is my blood of the new 
covenant, the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for you, 
for many, for the remission of sins : this do ye, as oft as ye 
drink it, in remembrance of me, (and they all drank of it.) 
Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of this fruit of 
the vine, until that day, when I shall drink it new with you 
in the kingdom of my Father, in the kingdom of God. And 
when they had sung an hymn, they went out to the mount 
of Olives.' 

The circumstance of time is the first thing here observable : 
it was ' in the night in which he was betrayed P' that our Lord 
instituted this holy Sacrament. Our Lord designed it (besides 
other uses) for a standing memorial of his passion : and to shew 
the more plainly that he did so, or to render it the more affect- 
ing, he delayed the institution to the last period of his life. 

A more material circumstance is, that he began the institution 

p i Cor. x . 23. 

CH. ii. the Holy Communion. 39 

as they were eating, or after they had been eating: here the 
question is, what had they been eating 1 It is commonly sup- 
posed the paschal lamb. For St. Matthew in the same chapter 
relates, that on the first day of unleavened bread, the disciples 
came and asked, 'Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee 
to eat the Passover ?' And the Lord made answer, that he 
would 'keep the Passover with his disciples,' and the disciples 
actually prepared the Passover <i. St. Mark reports the same r . 
St. Luke confirms it, and adds this further circumstance, that 
our Lord, upon his sitting down to supper, said, 'With desire 
have I desired to eat this Passover with you, before I suffer 8 .' 
Nevertheless, it seems from St. John's account, that the day of 
the legal Passover was not yet come, that it was 'before the 
feast of the Passover' that our Lord had his supper 4 ; that 
part of Friday, passion- day, was but the preparation 11 of the 
paschal feast. These seeming differences have occasioned very 
long and intricate disputes between Greeks and Latins, and 
among learned men both ancient and modern, which remain 
even to this day. I shall not presume to take the place of a 
moderator in so nice a debate, but shall be content to report as 
much as may serve to give the reader some notion of it, suffi- 
cient for my present purpose. There are three several schemes 
or opinions in this matter : i. The most ancient and most 
prevailing is, that our Lord kept the legal Passover, and on 
the same day with the Jews : and those who are in this 
sentiment have their probable solutions with respect to St. 
John's accounts, while they claim the three other Evangelists 
as entirely theirs. 2. The second opinion is, that our Lord 
anticipated (for weighty reasons) the time of the Jewish Pass- 
over, and so kept his before theirs : or rather, he kept his 
Passover at the true legal time, when the Jews (or some at 
least of the Jews) postponed theirs illegally. This opinion 
has also its difficulties, and the maintainers of it have contrived 
some plausible solutions. 3. The third opinion is, that our 
Lord kept no Passover properly so called, but had a supper, 

i Matt. xxvi. 17, 18, 19. r Mark xiv. 12 16. s Luke xxii. 15. 
* John xiii. i, 2. John xix. 14 : compare xviii. 28. 

40 The Institution of CH. n. 

and afterwards instituted the Eucharist, the mystical or Chris- 
tian Passover; called Passover in such a sense as Baptism is 
called Circumcision, succeeding in its room. This last opinion 
had some patrons of old time, and more of late, and seems to 
gain ground. I shall here transcribe what a learned and ju- 
dicious writer of our own has lately pleaded in behalf of it, 
though it may be thought somewhat prolix. It is in his notes 
on Matt. xxvi. i / x . 

' Here occurs a question and a difference between the words 
of St. John and the other three, concerning the day of the week 
on which the Jews kept the Passover that year 4746, A. D. 33. 
It is plain by all the four Gospels, that this day on which Christ 
did at night eat the Passover (or what some call the Passover) 
was Thursday. And one would think by reading the three, that 
that was the night on which the Jews did eat their Passover 
lamb. But all the texts of St. John are clear, that they did 
not eat it till the next night, Friday night, before which night 
Christ was crucified and dead, having given up the ghost about 
the ninth hour, viz. three of the clock in the afternoon. St. John 
does speak of a supper which Christ did eat on Thursday night 
with his Apostles, chap. xiii. i, 2, but he does not call it a 
Passover supper, but, on the contrary, says it was before the 
feast of the Passover, npb TT)S foprrjs TOV Trao-^a : by which, I 
think, he means the day before the Passover, or the Passover 
eve as we should say. Now this was the same night, and 
the same supper which the three do call the Passover, and 
Christ's eating the Passover. I mean, it was the night on 
which Christ was (a few hours after supper) apprehended ; as 
is plain by the last verse of that thirteenth chapter. But the next 
day (Friday, on which Christ was crucified) St. John makes 
to be the Passover day. He says, (chap, xviii. 28,) the Jews 
would not go into the judgment-hall on Friday morning, lest 
they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover, 
viz. that evening. And, chap. xix. 14, speaking of Friday noon, 
he says, it was the preparation of the Passover. Upon the 

1 Dr. Wall's Critical Notes on the New Testament, p. 33. 

CH. ii. the Holy Communion. 41 

whole, John speaks not of eating the Passover at all : nor 
indeed do the three speak of his eating any lamb. Among all 
the expressions which they use, ' of making ready the Passover ; ' 
' prepare for thee to eat the Passover ; ' ' with desire have I desired 
to eat this Passover with you/ &c., there is no mention of any 
lamb carried to the temple to be slain by the Levites, and then 
brought to the house and roasted : there is no mention of any 
food at the supper beside bread and wine : perhaps there might 
be bitter herbs. So that this seems to have been a commemo- 
rative supper used by our Saviour instead of the proper paschal 
supper, the eating of a lamb ; which should have been the next 
night, but that he himself was to be sacrificed before that time 
would come. And the difference between St. John and the other 
is only a difference in words, and in the names of things : they 
call that the Passover, which Christ used instead of it. 

' If you say, why then does Mark xiv. 1 2 call Thursday the 
first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, and 
Luke xxii. 7 the day of unleavened bread when the passover 
must be killed ? we must note, that their day, (or mj(Syupo) 
was from evening to evening. This Thursday evening was the 
beginning of that natural day of twenty -four hours, towards the 
end of which the lamb was to be killed : so it is proper in the 
Jews' way of calling days to call it that day.' Thus far Dr. Wall. 

Deylingius, a learned Lutheran, has more minutely canvassed 
the same question, and maintained the same side y. I shall not 
take upon me to say positively which of the three opinions is the 
best, or clogged with fewest difficulties. If the last of the three 
be preferred, then the Eucharist is as properly the Christian 
Passover, as Baptism is the Christian Circumcision ; and we have 
the authority of our Lord himself, or of his 'disciples, for so 
calling it, if they gave that name to the whole transaction. But 
whatever hypothesis we follow, there will be proof sufficient that 
the Eucharist succeeded in the room of the Passover, like as 
Baptism succeeded in the room of Circumcision. 

y Deylingius, Observat. Sacr. torn. Lips. 1736, where he again strongly 
i. pp. 233 249. Lipsiae, 1720. Com- maintains the same opinion, from 
pare his Observations Miscellaneae, p. 239 to p. 248. 

43 The Institution of CH. n. 

It appears to be well agreed among the learned of all parties, 
that the Christian Eucharist succeeded in the place of the Jewish 
Passover : and good use has been often made of the observation, 
for the explaining the nature of the Eucharist, as well as the 
phrase of the institution. Buxtorf has laboured with most 
advantage in this argument in his two tracts, (one against Sca- 
liger 7 , and the other against Cappellus a ,) and has so exhausted 
the subject, especially as to what concerns the forms and phrases, 
that he seems to have left but small gleanings for those that 
come after him. Yet some additional improvements have been 
since thrown in by learned hands b . The resembling circum- 
stances common to the Jewish and Christian Passover may be 
divided into two kinds : some relating to the things themselves, 
some to the phrases and forms made use of here and there. It 
may not be improper to present the reader with a brief detail of 
those resembling circumstances. 

I. Of the first sort are these : i. The Passover was of Divine 
appointment, and so is the Eucharist. 2. The Passover was a 
sacrament, and so is the Eucharist. 3. The Passover was a 
memorial 6 of a great deliverance from temporal bondage ; the 
Eucharist is a memorial of a greater deliverance from spiritual 
bondage. 4. The Passover prefigured the death of Christ d 
before it was accomplished, the Eucharist represents or figures 
out our Lord's death now past. 5. The Passover was a kind of 
federal rite between God and man, so also is the Eucharist. 
6. As no one was to eat of the Passover before he had been 
circumcised 6 , so no one is to partake of the Eucharist before he 
has been baptized. 7. As the Jews were obliged to come clean 
to the Passover f , so are Christians obliged to come well prepared 
to the Communion ?. 8. As slight defilements (where there was 
no contempt) did not debar a man from the Passover, nor excuse 

1 Buxtorf. Dissertat. vi. de Coenae c Exod. xii. 14; xiii. 9. Deut. 

Dominicae primae Ritibus et Forma, xvi. 3. 

* Vindiciae Exercitat. de Coena d Vid. Vitringa, Observ. Sacr. torn. 

Domini adv. Lud. Cappel. p. 338, i. lib. 2. cap. 9. p. 415, &c. 

&c. Exod. xii. 43 48. 

b Pfaffius de Oblat. vet. Eucharist. f Num. ix. 6. 

p. 165. &c. Bucherus, Antiq. Biblicae, i Cor. xi. 27, 28, 29. 
p. 360, &c. 

CH. ii. the Holy Communion. 43 

his neglect of it h , so neither do smaller offences, where there is 
an honest heart, either forbid or excuse a man's absenting from 
this sacrament. 9. As a total contempt or neglect of the Passover 
was crime great enough to render the offender liable to be ' cut 
off from Israel V so a total contempt or neglect of the Holy 
Communion is in effect to be cut off from Christianity. 10. As 
the Passover was to continue as long as the Jewish law should 
stand in force, so must the Eucharist abide as long as Chris- 
tianity k . I have thrown these articles together in a short 
compass for the present, only to give the reader a brief general 
view of the analogy between those two Sacraments ; and not 
that he should take the truth of every particular for granted, 
without further proof, if anything of moment should be hereafter 
built upon any of them. 

II. The other sort of resembling circumstances concern the 
particular forms and phrases made use of in the institution : and 
it is in these chiefly that the great masters of Jewish antiquities, 
before referred to, have obliged the Christian world. I shall 
offer a short summary of these likewise. 

1. In the paschal supper, the master of the house took bread 
and blessed it in a prayer of thanksgiving to God : and the rule 
was, never to begin the blessing till he had the bread in hand, 
that so the prayer of benediction directed to God might at the 
same time be understood to have relation to the bread, and 
might draw down a blessing upon it \ It is obvious to see how 
applicable all this is to our Lord's conduct in the first article of 
the institution. 

2. The breaking of the bread, after benediction, was a cus- 
tomary practice in the Jewish feasts m : only in the paschal feast 
it is said that the bread was first broken and the benediction 
followed n . But whether our Lord varied then, in a slight cir- 
cumstance, or the Jews have varied since, may remain a question. 

h Num. ix. 10. 2 Chron. xxx. 18. Antiq. Evangel, p. 368, &c. Bux- 

' Exod. xii. 15. Num. ix. 13. torf. de Coena Domini, p. 310. 

Cp. Bucher. Antiq. p. 402. m Buxtorf. 313. Bucherus, 372. 

k i Cor. xi. 26. n Lightfoot, Temple Service, c. 

1 See Pfaffius de Oblat. vet. Eu- xiii. sect. 7. p. 964 ; and on Matt, 

charist. p. 171, &c. Bucherus, xxvi. 26, p. 259. Piaffius, p. 178. 

44 The Institution of CH. 11. 

3. The distributing the bread to the company, after the bene- 
diction and fraction, was customary among the Jews : and here 
likewise our Lord was pleased to adopt the like ceremony. 

Several learned men have suggested P, that the words ' This is 
my body,' might be illustrated from some old Jewish forms 
made use of in the Passover feast; as, This is the bread of 
affliction, &c., and, This is the body of the Passover : but Buxtorf 
(who best understood these matters), after considering once and 
again, constantly rejected the former, and demurred to the other 
instance Q, as not pertinent, or not early enough to answer the 
purpose : and Bucherus r , who has carefully re-examined the 
same, passes the like doubtful judgment ; or rather rejects both 
the instances as improper, not being found among the Jewish 
rituals, or being too late to come into account. So I pass them 
by. Justin Martyr, I cannot tell how, was persuaded, that 
Esdras, at a Passover, had said to the Jews, This Passover 
(i.e. paschal lamb) is our Saviour and our refuge 8 , and that the 
Jews after Christ's time had erased the passage out of the 
Septuagint. He was certainly mistaken in his report: but 
the words are worth the observing, as discovering what the 
Christians in his time thought of the Passover as a type of 
Christ, and how they understood paschal phrases, parallel to 
' This is my body,' <fcc. 

4. The words, ' This do in remembrance of me,' making part 
of the institution, are reasonably judged to allude to the ancient 
paschal solemnities, in which were several memorials 1 : and the 
service itself is more than once called a memorial in the Old 
Testament, as before noted. 

Buxtorf, 316. Bucherus, 374. lutely rejects one and doubts of the 
P See particularly Pfaffius de Ob- other. 

lat. p. 179. And Deylingius, (Mis- s Kot e?ire/ 'E<r$pas rip Aaip, TOUTO 

cellan. Sacr. p. 228, &c.), who re- rt> fdcr^a 6 <ro>T^p finuv, al ft Kara- 

fers to such authors as have es- <f>uy^i rmiav. Justin Mart. Dial. p. 

poused the first of the instances, 292. edit. Thirlby. Cp. Wolfius, 

after Baronius and Scaliger. i Cor. v. 7. 

1 Buxtorf. Dissert, vi. de Coena, p. * ' 'Av djtvTjcm ritus Hebraeorum 
301. Dissert. vii.Vindic. pp. 347, 348. redolet : habebant namque Judaei, 

r Bucherus, Antiq. Evangel, p. in celebratione agni paschalis, plures 
375. Compare Deylingius (Miscel- ejusmodi a.i> et recordati- 
lan. Sacr. p. 228, &c.), who abso- ones,' &c. Bucherus, p. 379. 

CH. ii. the Holy Communion. 45 

5. In the ancient paschal feast, the master of the house was 
wont to take cup after cup (to the number of four) into his 
hands, consecrating them one after another by a short thanks- 
giving ; after which each consecrated cup was called a cup of 
blessing. It is judged by the learned in Jewish antiquities", 
that the third or fourth cup (Buxtorf is positive for the fourth) 
was what our Lord was pleased to sanctify, by taking it into his 
hand, and giving thanks over it. It is doubted what the words 
'after supper' mean ; whether in the close of the paschal supper, as 
some think x , or after they had eaten bread, as others construe y : 
but the difference is not of moment, and so I pass on. 

6. At the institution of the Passover it was said, ' The blood 
shall be to you for a token upon the houses where you are ; 
and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague 
shall not be upon you 2 ,' &c. The blood was the token of the 
covenant in that behalf, between God and his people; as circum- 
cision before had been a token a also of a like covenant, and called 
covenant b as well as token. In the institution of the Communion, 
our Lord says, ' This cup is the new covenant in my blood 
which is shed for you, for many, for the remission of sins.' 
The cup is here by a figure put for wine ; and covenant, accord- 
ing to ancient Scripture phrase, is put for token of a covenant ; 
and wine, representative of Christ's blood, answers to the blood 
of the Passover, typical of the same blood of Christ c : and the 

u Pfaffius de Oblat. Euch. p. 173. consecratum, quam versionem se- 

Buxtorf. iu Lex. Talmud, pp. 614, quuntur Arabs et Persa. Sic Grae- 

616. Dissert, vi. p. 300. Lightfoot cis Sttwvov quideni ISitas coenam, 

on Matt. xxvi. 27, p. 259. Buche- sed TraxfAcUs et Karaxpj)<TTiK(as saepe 

rus, pp. 380 384. Zornius Opusc. cibum et quodvis epulum connotat ; 

Sacr. torn. ii. p. 14, &c. Hooper qua notione Hesiodus dixit ftfiirvov 

on Lent, part ii. cap. 3. p. 173. troifiv, comedere, cibum sumere,' &c. 

* Lightfoot, pp. 259, 260. Bucher. p. 362. 

>' 'Tb juera SfiTrvfiffat [i Cor. xi. z Exod. xii. 13. 

25.] noil vertenduin est, post coenam a Gen. xvii. 1 1. 

communem, qualis nunquam fuit, b Gen. xvii. 10. 'This is my cove- 

sed remote post coenam paschalem : nant,' &c. ; and v. 13, 'my covenant 

vel, quod vero similius est, proxime shall be in your flesh, ' &c. 

et immediate pos esum panis conse- c 'Deus speciali mandate sacrificia 

crati ; cui expos iioni respondet re- et primitias offerendas ordinavit, 

censio historica Luc. xxii. 10. wtrav- maxime effusionem sanguinis, ut ab 

TCOS KO.} r>> TtoTtipio" /j.tra rb Strnvriffai, initio homines haberent unde effusi- 

postquam coinederant, scil. paiiem onis per Christum tacite recordari 

46 The Commemoration of Christ CH. in. 

remission of sins here, answers to the passing over there, and pre- 
serving from plague. These short hints may suffice at present, 
just to intimate the analogy between the Jewish Passover and 
the Christian Eucharist in the several particulars of moment 
here mentioned. 

7. At the paschal feast there was an annunciation or declara- 
tion d of the great things which God had done for that people : 
in like manner, one design of the Eucharist is to make a de- 
claration of the mercies of God in Christ, to ' sheAv the Lord's 
death till he come.' 

8. Lastly, at the close of the paschal supper, they were wont 
to sing an hymn 6 of praise : and the like was observed in the 
close of the institution of the Christian Eucharist ; as is recorded 
in the Gospels. 

The many resembling circumstances, real and verbal, which I 
have here briefly enumerated, do abundantly shew that this holy 
Euchai'ist was in a great measure copied from the paschal feast, 
and was intended to supply its place, only heightening the design, 
and improving the application. The use of the observation may 
appear afterwards, when we come to consider more minutely 
either the general intent or the particular parts of this Christian 


Of the Commemoration or Remembrance of Christ in the 
Holy Communion. 

SINCE the end or design of anything is always considered as 
first in view, antecedent in natural order to the performance, so 
the rules of just method require that in treating of this Sacra - 

possent. Dan. ix. 24. Heb. ix. et Observant praeterea viri docti vimim 

x. Horn. iii. Praeter caeteras obla- rufum, quale in illis regionibus cres- 

tiones Deo factas, com memorabilia cebat, ac in primis in coena paschali 

sunt sacrificia in festo expiationum. bibebatur, egregiam nobis sanguinis 

.... Turn quoque sacrificium agni memoriam relinquere.' Bucher. An- 

paschalis, et quotidiani, seu jugis tiq. Evan. p. 389. 

sacrificii, attendi debet. Hos igitur d See Lightfoot, vol. ii. p. 778. 

adritus et oblationes alludit Christus Pfaffius, p. 181. 

cum ait, TOVTO ydp tan rb alpa /.LOV e See Lightfoot, vol. ii. pp. 258, 

, . , 

rb Tys Katvfjs SioO^KTjs, rb irepl iro\- 260. Pfaffius, p. 181. 
Kiev fKX^"6/jifvov fls &(pecriv a/j.apTtuv. 

CH. in. in The Holy Communion. 47 

ment we should begin with some account of the proximate end 
and design of it ; namely, the commemoration or remembrance 
of Christ, ' This do in remembrance of me f ;' and particularly of 
his death and passion, 'shew the Lord's death till he come?.' 
I call it the proximate or immediate end, because the ultimate 
end of all is the happiness of man, or, what is coincident there- 
with, the glory of God. Our blessed Lord seeks not his own 
glory, but the good of his creatures, in all that he appoints them 
to do. He is not capable of receiving advantage, or any real 
addition to his own glory, by any of our commemorations or ser- 
vices : but all these things are graciously appointed for our 
present and future benefit ; and we may be confident that Christ, 
the Captain of our salvation, would prescribe nothing in a par- 
ticular manner, which does not as particularly contribute to 
that end. Some Divines, of a refined and elevated way of 
thinking, will not allow that God can have any end but himself, 
in anything that he does, because he can have no higher : but 
then they do not mean that God proposes to himself any increase 
of happiness or of essential glory, to which nothing can be added ; 
but that, as he is naturally benevolent, and as he takes delight in 
his own being and attributes, (the most worthy of his love,) so 
he delights in the exercise of his goodness, and chooses it as 
worthy of himself, and, in this sense, acts only for himself. In 
such a sense as this, our blessed Lord may be said to have acted 
for himself, or for his own glory, in what he did for mankind : 
but it can in no sense be allowed, that he receives any advantage 
by what we say or do ; and therefore the ultimate end (so con- 
sidered) of our commemorations or services is the benefit 
accruing from thence to ourselves : what they are we shall see in 
due time and place. This being premised for clearer conception, 
or to prevent mistakes, I now proceed. 

The commemoration of our Lord's dying for us includes 
two things ; the consideration of him as Lord, and as dying ; 
one expressing his personal dignity, the other expressing his 

f Luke xxii. 19. 1 Cor. xi. 24, & i Cor. xi. 26. Tbi> rov 
25. TOVTO itoieire its -rty ^rjv avd/j.- Kvpiov KaTayj(\\ere &xpis ov tut 

48 The Commemoration of Christ CH. in. 

meritorious sufferings relative to us. The first of the two may 
suffice for the present : the second may be reserved for a 
distinct chapter. 

I here take for my ground the words of our Lord, ' This do 
in remembrance of me.' The Greek words els T^V e^v dvd- 
fjLvrja-iv may bear three several renderings (or four) : i. In re- 
membrance of me. 2. In commemoration of me. 3. For a 
memorial of me, or, for my memorial. They differ not much in 
sense, but yet as they do differ, they may deserve a distinct 
consideration. The second includes the first ; and the third 
includes both the former, not vice versd : so they rise, as it were, 
in sense, and are so many distinct gradations, as shall be shewn 

I. I begin with the first and lowest, this do 'in remembrance 
of me.' The Socinians, (some of them at least,) not content 
with supposing this remembrance or commemoration to be one 
considerable end or part of this Sacrament, make it to be the 
only end or use of it h ; yea and sometimes go so far as to say 
that it constitutes the very nature or essence of this holy rite : 
for they interpret the words, ' This is my body,' so as to mean, 
this action, this eating and drinking, is the memorial of Christ's 
body broken \ &c. Which is overdoing, and neglecting to dis- 
tinguish between the thing itself, and the end or design of it ; 
between what is done, and for what purpose it is done. We eat 
bread and we drink wine in the Sacrament, the symbols of 
Christ's body and blood ; and we do so for this reason, among 
others, that Christ may be remembered, and the merits of his 
passion celebrated. But this I hint by the way only, and pass 

h 'Et haecquidem quam explicui- Christ! pro memoriali signo cor- 

inus, mortis Christi annuntiatio pro- poris Christ! fracti, et sanguinis 

prius est, atque unicus Coenae Domi- fusi sumimus : cornmemorationem 

nicae finis,' &c. Coen. Dom. autem, istius sacri ritus finem usum- 

p. 687. que esse dicimiis.' Schlichting. contr. 

1 'Haec actio frangendi et come- Meisn. p. 761. 'Ritus istius natu- 

dendi panem, est corpus, hoc est ram in panis fractione et esu, et e 

commemoratio Christi corporis pro poculo potu, perque haec in mortis 

nobis fracti.' Smalc. cont. Frantz. Christi representatione qnadam, si- 

p. 315. tarn esse dicimus.' Ibid. pp. 785, 

'Corpus Christi et sanguinem 786. 

CH. in. in the Holy Communion. 49 

on to what I design. Remembrance of Christ is undoubtedly a 
principal end of this Sacrament. It is not declared by the insti- 
tution itself, in what view, or under what capacity we are here 
to remember him ; but that must be learned from other places 
of Scripture, which declare who and what he is : for certainly we 
are to remember him in such a light as the Old and New Testa- 
ment have represented him in. This appears to be an allowed 
principle on all hands : for none think themselves obliged to stop 
in the bare words of the institution, without carrying their in- 
quiries further into the whole compass of Scripture, when they 
see proper. The Socinians themselves will not scruple to allow 
that Christ may or ought to be remembered in the Sacrament as 
Lord, in their sense, or as Master, or Saviour, or Head, or 
Judge, though there is not a word of Lord, or Master, or 
Saviour, or Head, or Judge, in the bare form of the institution 
as delivered by Christ : but those names or titles are to be 
fetched from other places of Scripture. Therefore, I say, it is 
allowed by all parties, that we ought to remember Christ, in the 
holy Communion, according to what he is, by the Scripture 
account of him. This foundation being laid, I go on to the 
superstructure : and for the more distinct conception of what 
this remembrance implies or contains, I shall take leave to 
proceed by several steps or degrees. 

i. It is not sufficient to remember Christ merely as a very 
great and good man, a wise instructor, and an admirable teacher, 
while he lived, received up into celestial bliss and glory 
when he died : for all this comes vastly short of what sacred 
Writ declares of him ; and is indeed no more (if so much) than 
what the Pagans themselves, the Platonists, particularly of the 
second and third centuries, were ready to admit. For, being 
struck with the fame of his undoubted miracles, and with the 
inimitable force of his admirable precepts, holy life, and ex- 
emplary death, they could not but revere and honour his 
memory ; neither could they refuse to assign him a place among 
their chief sages or deities k . And all the plea they had left for 

k See this particularly proved in a written by Laurence Mosheim, and 
very learned and curious dissertation, lately inserted, with improvements, 


50 Commemoration of Christ CH. in. 

not receiving Christianity was, that his disciples (as was pre- 
tended) had revolted, or degenerated, and had not duly observed 
the wholesome instructions of their high leader 1. Those Pagan 
philosophers therefore, as I said, remembered Christ, in as high 
a view as this article amounts to : a Christian remembrance 
must go a great deal higher. 

2. It is not sufficient to remember Christ merely as an 
eminent prophet, or one of the chief prophets, an ambassador 
from heaven, and one that received his Gospel from above, 
wrought miracles, lived a good life, was deified after death, and 
will come again to judge mankind : for all this the Mahometans 
themselves (or some sects amongst them) can freely own, and 
they pay a suitable regard to his memory on that score m . It is 
all vastly below what the Scriptures plainly testify of him, and 
therefore does not amount to a Christian remembrance of 

3. Neither yet is it sufficient to remember Christ as our Head, 
Lord, and Master, to whom we owe such regard as disciples do 
to their leader or founder : for all this is no more than what the 
Jews justly ascribed to Moses, who was but the servant of 
Christ n . And it is no more than what many nominal Christians, 
ancient and modern, many half-believers have owned, and what 
all but declared apostates or infidels must own. And it comes 
not up to what the Scriptures fully and frequently teach, and 
therefore does not amount to a due remembrance of him. 

into his Latin translation of Cud- praeceptoris sui scitis Christianos 

worth, vol. ii. Cp. Euseb. lib. vii. Platonici criminabantur .. ..atque 

cap. 1 8. 'Christum, Servatorem nos- castam et sanam ejus disciplinam 

trum, virum magnum, divinum, et variis erroribus inquinasse 

sapientissimum fuisse non inficia- i. Quod divinis Christum honoribus 

bantur, qui egregia et divina plane afficerent ; nee enim a suis id postu- 

docuisset, cumque a Judaeis injus- lasse Christum. 2. Quod Deos negli- 

tissimo supplicio necatus ftiisset, in gerent, et eorum cultum extinctum 

coelum ad Deos commeasset.' Mo- vellent ; Christum enim ipsum a 

shem. ibid. p. 23. Hence perhaps it Diis baud alienum fuisse.' Moshem. 

was, that the Emperor Alexander ibid. p. 24. 

Severus, (of the third century,) along m See Eeland. de Eeligione Mo- 

with the images of Apollonius and hammedica, pp. 25, 33, 34, 44, 45, 

Orpheus, had others of Abraham 212, 224. David Millius, Dissert. 

and Jesus Christ, receiving them as x. de Mohammedismo, pp. 344, 345, 

deities. Lamprid. \'it. Severi. 346. 

1 'Descivisse scilicet a sanctissimi D Heb. iii. 2 6. 

CH. in. in the Holy Communion. 51 

4. Neither, lastly, is it sufficient to remember Christ as higher 
than the angels, or older than the system of the world : for that 
is not more than many misbelievers, of former or of later times, 
have made no scruple to own, and it is still short of the Scripture 

For, according to the whole tenor both of Old and New 
Testament, Jesus Christ is not merely our Lord, Master, Judge, 
&c., but our Divine Lord and Master ; Lord in such a sense as 
to be Jehovah and God of Israel, God before the creation, and 
by whom all creatures were made ; who ' laid the foundation of 
the earth,' and even the 'heavens are the works of his hands P;' 
who has a rightful claim to be worshipped and adored, by men, 
by angels n, by the whole creation r . 'And no wonder, since he 
is described in sacred Writ as 'God with us 8 ,' as Lord God*, 
'true God u ,' 'great God x ,' 'mighty Gody,' 'over all, God blessed 
for ever 2 .' Such is the Scripture account of our blessed Lord, 
and his personal dignity ; and therefore as such we ought to 
remember him as often as we think of him, and more particularly 
at the Communion table. For since the value of what our Lord 
has done or suffered rises in proportion to the dignity of the 
person so doing or suffering, it is manifest that we cannot duly 
or suitably remember him in the Sacrament, if we entertain not 
those high and honourable conceptions of him, which such his 
personal dignity demands. If the sending of the only-begotten 
Son into the world, to suffer, bleed, and die for us, was really 
the highest instance of Divine love which could possibly have 
been given : and if we are obliged, in return, to express our 
thankfulness in a way suitable thereto : and if such a suitable 
return is altogether impracticable without a just sense of the 
favour granted : and if no just sense can be had of it, while we 
take away the most endearing and enforcing consideration, which 
most of all enhances the value of it : if these premises be true, 
the conclusion is plain and necessary, that as often as we 

John i. i, 2, 3. P Heb. i. 10. The reader who desires to see 

1 Heb. i. 6. r Rev. v. 13. these several texts explained, and 
s Matt. i. 23. 'Luke i. 16, 17. objections answered, may please to 
u i John v. 20. x Tit. ii. 13. compare my Eight Sermons, and 
y Isa. ix. 6. z Rom. ix. 5. particularly the sixth. 

E 2 

52 Commemoration of Christ CH. in. 

remember Christ in the Eucharist, we ought to remember him 
not barely as a wise man, or a good man, or an eminent prophet, 
or chief martyr, or as our particular Master, or Founder, or 
Redeemer, but as an almighty Saviour and Deliverer, as the 
only -begotten of the Father, 'very God of very God,' of the same 
Divine nature, of glory equal, of majesty co-eternal. He that 
remembers him in any lower sense than this, in opposition to 
this, is not worthy of him ; neither can he be esteemed by sober 
and discerning Christians as a worthy partaker of the holy 

To confirm this reasoning drawn from Scripture texts, I shall 
subjoin some human, but very ancient authorities. They are 
what all writers, so far as I can perceive, in some degree value, 
and think it an honour to have, if they can but contrive any 
colourable pretensions to them a : and it is only when disappoint- 
ment makes them despair, that they affect to contemn what 
they cannot arrive to. Justin Martyr is a very early writer, 
born about the year 89, (as appears probable,) and writing with- 
in forty or fifty years of the latest Apostle. It is worth the 
while to know what so early and so considerable a person 
thought of a Christian Sacrament, which he had so often fre- 
quented ; especially when he gives us a formal, solemn account 
of it, in the name of his Christian brethren, and in an address to 
the Emperor. 'This food we call the Eucharist, of which none 
are allowed to be partakers but such only as are true believers, 
and have been baptized in the laver of regeneration for the 
remission of sins, and live according to Christ's precepts. For 
we do not take this as common bread and common wine : but 
as Jesus Christ our Saviour was made flesh by the Logos of 
God, and had real flesh and blood for our salvation, so are we 
taught that this food, which the very same Logos blessed by 
prayer and thanksgiving, is turned into the nourishment" and 
substance of our flesh and blood, and is in some sense the 
flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus V I choose to follow 

ft See my Importance of the Doc- b Justin Mart. Apol. i. cap. 86. 
trine of the Trinity, vol. iii. pp. 655, p. 96. edit. Thirlby. Beeves, vol. i. 
656. pp. 1 20, 121. 

CH. in. in the Holy Communion. 53 

Mr. Reeves's translation of this passage, though somewhat 
paraphrastical, because he has very well hit off the sense. What 
I have to observe upon it, as suitable to my present purpose, is, 
that particular notice is twice taken of the incarnation of the 
Logos, (that is, of God incarnate, according to Justin's known 
doctrine of the Logos being God,) and the Sacrament is not only 
supposed to be a commemoration , but a kind of emblem of it by 
Justin's account 11 , as the intelligent reader will observe. The 
reason is, that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is the Sacrament 
of the passion 6 , and God the Son, by becoming incarnate, first 
became passible. All which will be made plainer, by another 
passage of the same Justin, in his Dialogue with the Jew f , which 
is as follows : ' That prayers and thanksgivings, made by those 
who are worthy, are the only sacrifices that are perfect and 
well pleasing to God, I also affirm : for these are the only ones 
which Christians have been taught to perform even in that, 
remembrance [or memorial] of their food both dry and liquid, 
wherein also is commemorated the passion which God of God 
suffered in his own person, [or for them].' i have no need to 
take notice here of more than is to my present purpose. The 
words 'God of God' are what I point to, as a proof that the 
Divinity of Christ was an important article of the Eucharistical 
remembrance. If any should incline to read 'Son of God,' (upon 
conjecture, for it is no more,) instead of ' God of God,' in that 
place, it will still amount to the same, because Justin always un- 
derstood the phrase of ' Son of God' in the highest and strongest 

c Eis a.vdu.vr}ffi.v rov re ffiafiaroTrot- Kal eV ava/uvfifffL 8e rrfs rpo(pris avriav 

t)o~a(r6ai avrbv 810, rovs Tfiffrevovras ^tjpas re Kal vypas, Iv ft Kal rov irdOovs 

tls avrbv Si ovs Kal Tra6r)rbs ytyovf. o irtirovQf 8*' aurov 6 eos rov tov 

Justin Mart. Dial. p. 290. j ue / u' /r ? TC "- Justin Mart. Dial. p. 387. 

d How this was understood, see A conjectural emendation has been 

explained in a Charge on the Doc- offered, directing us to read 61' av- 

trinal Use of the Sacraments, p. rovs, 6 vibs rov 0eoD. Mede, Opp. p. 

25. 362. Thirlby in loc. I see not why 

c Eis avd/j.i'r)o~iv rov irddovs ov ena- o fbs rov eov may not mean the 

0ei>. Justin Mart. Dial. p. 220. same with 6 ebs tic rov &eov : per- 

f "On juti/ ovv Kal (v^al, nal (vx<*pt- haps &c might have been negligently 

ffriat, virb rSiv a|iW ytv6/>ai, ri\- dropped. The learned editor in- 

tiat /jiovai KOI tvdptffroi etcn rw f$ genuously says, 'istud Qfbs admo- 

Bvcriat, Kal avrbs <f>ij/ji.i. Tavra, yap clum sane invitus muto, propter 

jutfVa Kal Xpicrrtavol irapf\afiov irotfw sequential 

54 Commemoration of Christ CH. in. 

sense as meaning 'God of God?.' But I see no necessity of 
admitting any new conjectural change of 6 06s into 6 vlbs, since 
Qfos is very frequently our Lord's title in Justin n , yea, and 6 
Qtbs more than once 4 . But I proceed. 

I shall subjoin a passage of Origen, containing the like ele- 
vated sentiments of the remembrance made in the holy Com- 
munion. ' Thou that art come to Christ, (the true High Priest, 
who by his blood has reconciled God to thee, and thee to the 
Father,) rest not in the blood of the flesh, but consider rather the 
blood of the Logos, and hear him declaring, This is my blood 
which shall be shed for you, for remission of sins : the initiated 
in the mysteries well understand both the flesh and the blood of 
God the Word V So I translate the last words, as most agree- 
able to Origen's usual phraseology : but if any one chooses rather 
to say 'Logos of God,' it comes to the same thing. The sum is, 
that the life and soul, as it were, of the Eucharistical remembrance 
lies in the due consideration of the Divine dignity of the Person 
whose passion we there remember 1 . And indeed every man's 
awn reason must convince him that it must be so, if he ever 
seriously calls to mind the Scripture accounts of our blessed 
Lord, which I have above recited. Hitherto I have confined 
myself to the strict notion of remembrance. 

II. 1 am next to advance a step further to commemoration, 
>vhich is remembrance and somewhat more. For to a bare 
:emembering it superadds the notion of extolling, honouring, 
elebrating, and so it is collecting all into one complex idea of 

K *Os KO! \6yos irptDT&ToKos &v TOV onem peccatorum. Novit qui mys- 

9eoC, Kai 8ebs vjrdpxfi' p. 94. Cp. teriis imbutus est, et carnem et san- 

jp. 406, 408, 411. guinem Verbi Dei.' Orig. in Levit. 

h Justin Mart. pp. 204, 210, 233, Horn. ix. pp. 243, 244, ed. Bened. 

250, 261, 263, 265, 273, 291, 303, Cp. Clem. Alex. Paedagog. lib. ii. 

328, 408, 409. cap. 2. p. 1 86 : -rbv \6yov tKx^iavov 

i Justin Mart. pp. 251, 326, 378. &c. 

k "Tu qui ad Christum venisti, ' Great use was afterwards made 

(Pontificem verum qui sanguine suo of this consideration in the Nestorian 

Deum tibi propitium fecit, et recon- controversy : of which see Cyrill. 

cilia vit te Patri) non haereas in san- Alex. Ep. ad Nestor, p. 72. et Ana- 

guine camis ; sed disce potius san- them. xi. cum Explanat. p. 156. 

guinem Verbi, et audi ipsum tibi Item Apologet. advers. Oriental, pp. 

dicentem, quia hie sanguis meus est, 192, 193. 
qui pro vobis effundetur in remissi- 

CH. in. in the Holy Communion. 55 

commemorating. This do 'in commemoration of me :' which 
is the second rendering of the same words. Some perhaps might 
wonder why the Socinians, of all men, should reject the notion of 
remembering, and choose that of commemoration, (which is really 
higher,) yea, and should strongly insist upon it, and make it a 
point. They certainly do so, as may appear from their own 
writings m : and what is stranger still, they assign such odd rea- 
sons for it, that one would scarce think them in earnest, if we were 
to look no further. For what if St. Paul does speak of declaring, 
or shewing our Lord's death, may not dvdfjLvrja-ts still signify 
remembrance 1 Is it not proper first to remember, and then to 
declare ; or to declare it now, in order to remember for the 
future ? Why should one exclude the other, when both are con- 
sistent, and suit well together 1 And though a person is sup- 
posed, before his coming to the holy Communion, to have the 
Lord's death in mind, confusely, or in the general, may he not 
still want to have it more in mind, and to remember it in par- 
ticular, with all its circumstances, upon a close recollection, 
assisted by an external solemnity performed before his eyes 1 
Besides, if we should not want to call it to mind, yet we may 
want to keep it in mind for the future : and who sees not how 
serviceable the sacramental solemnity may be for that very pur- 
pose 1 Add to this, that it is particulai'ly said with respect to the 

mt Apparet,graviter errasseillosqui posuit. ' Socin. de Usu et Fin. 

existimarunt verbum ' commemora- Coenae Domini, pp. 4, 5. 

tionem,' quod in Graeco est avdfj.i'ijtni', ' Quod nonnulli per 'commemoratio- 

mutari debere in ' recordationem : ' nem' in verbis Christi quibus ritum 

neque enim dicit Paulus mortem hunc instituit, ' recordationem' intel- 

Domini recordamini, sed mortem ligunt, vel hanc pro ilia vocem repo- 

Domini annuntiatis, quod profecto iiunt, arbitrantes in eum finem ritum 

non recordationem, sed commemora- hunc sacrum esse institutum, ut no- 

tionem et praedicationem omnino bis mortem Domini in memoriam re- 

significat . . . . non est quod quis ex vocet, in eo manifesto errant ; quum 

verbo illo (') colligat coenam qui ritum hunc sacrum obire recte 

Domini in eum finem institutani fu- velit, ac mortem Domini hac ratione 

isse, ut nobis suggerat et in memo- annuntiare, eum Christi mortis probe 

riam revocet mortem ipsius Domini et semper memorem esse oporteat.' 

.... Commemoratio autem ista, et Cracov. Catechism, sect. vi. cap. 4. 

praedicatio mortis Christi, id neces- p. 229. Cp. Schlichting. in I Cor. 

sario conjunctum habet, ut gratiae xi. 25. et contr. Meisner. pp. 805, 

agantur Christo, turn vero Deo, patri 814, 816. "\Yolzogen. in Matt. xxvi. 

ejus, cujus mandate animam suam p. 416. 

56 Commemoration of Christ CH. in. 

Passover, ' Thou shalt sacrifice the passover, &c., that thou mayest 
remember the day when thou earnest out of Egypt, all the days 
of thy life n .' Which is exactly parallel, so far, to the remem- 
brance appointed in the Eucharist. How trifling would it be to 
urge, that the Israelites were supposed to remember the day before 
their coming to the Passover, and therefore could have no need to 
refresh their memories by coming ; or to urge, that because they 
ought always to bear it in mind, therefore it could not be one 
end or use of the Passover, to remind them of it, or to keep it 
in remembrance all their days. 

One may judge from hence, that Socinus's pretended reasons 
against the notion of remembrance were mere shuffle and pre- 
tence, carrying more of art and colouring in them, than of truth 
or sincerity : he had a turn to serve in favour of an hypothesis, 
and that was all. The turn was this : he had a mind to make 
the dvdfju>T)(ris (which is one end, or use, or part of the Sacrament) 
to be the whole of the Sacrament, its whole nature and essence, as 
I before hinted, and to interpret the words, ' This is my body ' 
and ' This is my blood,' to mean, this bread and wine, or rather 
this action, is an dvdnvrjo-is, a commemoration, and nothing more. 
He could not pretend to say, that this material thing, or this 
external action, is a remembrance, (which denotes an internal 
perception,) and therefore he substitutes commemoration in its 
stead, an outward act, and external service, and then resolves the 
whole of the Sacrament into that, confounding the end or use of 
the thing with the thing itself. This was his fetch ; and so he 
hoped to be rid at once of all supposed present graces or benefits 
accruing to worthy receivers, making the sign and thing signified 
to be all one, and indeed to be sign only. 

However, though Socinus had no good views in interpreting 
dvdfjiVTjais by commemoration, and was undoubtedly wrong in ex- 
cluding remembrance : yet setting aside his foreign fancies, it is 
very right to interpret the word by commemoration ; but so as 
to include both an inward remembrance of benefits, and an out- 
ward celebration of the same, together with devout praises and 

n Deut. xvi. 2, 3. 

CH. in. in the Holy Communion. 57 

thanksgivings to Christ our Lord for them, and to all the three 
Persons of the ever-blessed Trinity. It is scarce possible for a 
considerate devout mind to stop short in a bare remembrance, 
(though remembrance is always supposed, and is by this sacred 
solemnity reinforced,) but it will of course break out into thank- 
ful praises and adorations. We accept therefore of what Socinus 
and his brethren so much contend for, that the Greek avafanja-is, 
in this case, does amount to a commemoration, and is better ren- 
dered by that word than by remembrance : because the word will 
bear it, and because the circumstances shew that remembrance 
alone, without commemoration superadded, is short of the idea 
intended by it. 

I may further note, though it is but the natural and obvious 
consequence of what I have before said, that this commemoration 
must be understood in as high and as full a sense as the remem- 
brance spoken of above : we must commemorate our Lord in a 
manner suitable to his Divine natm-e and dignity, and according 
to what he is by the Scripture accounts. We must commemorate 
him as God, purchasing the Church with his own blood . We 
must commemorate his passion as St. Paul has done, and in like 
words with these : ' Who, being in the form of God, thought it 
not robbery to be equal with God : but made himself of no repu- 
tation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made 
in the likeness of men : and being found in fashion as a man, he 
humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the 
death of the cross P.' In another place, the same Apostle, speak- 
ing of the ' redemption by the blood ' of Christ, and of his 
making ' peace through the blood of the cross,' closes one, and 
ushers in the other, with a large account of the supereminent 
dignity of his Person, as born before the creation ; adding, that 
' all things were created by him, and for him, and by him con- 
sist i.' This is the right way of celebrating or commemorating 

Acts xx. 28. For the reading P Phil. ii. 6, 7, 8. See my fifth 

of the text, see Mill, in loc. and Sermon, vol. ii., Second Defence, 

Pearson on the Creed, p. 129, and vol. ii. p. 548, and Third Defence, 

Vitringa, Observ. Sacr. torn. i. p. vol. iii. p. 59. 

213, and Pfaffius de Var. Lect. p. i Coloss. i. 14 20. Compare my 

161. Sermons, vol. ii. pp. 56, &c. 103, &c. 

58 Commemoration of Christ CH. in. 

his passion, as it is declaring the infinite value of it. To speak of 
him only as man, or as a creature, though otherwise in a devout 
way, is not honouring, but dishonouring him and his sufferings ; 
is not commemorating, hut blaspheming his name. St. Paul, in 
another place, going to speak of our Lord's passion, introduces 
it with a previous description of his personal dignity: 'appointed 
heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds ; who being 
the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his Person, 
and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had 
by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the 
Majesty on high r .' But as remarkable a passage as any is that 
of the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the Apostle, to enhance the 
value of Christ's sufferings, expresses himself thus : ' If the blood 
of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the 
unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh ; how much more 
shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered 
himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead 
works to serve the living God 8 1 ' By eternal Spirit, I under- 
stand Christ's Divine nature, as the most judicious interpreters 
do * : and so from hence it is plain how the merit of Christ's 
sufferings rises in proportion to the dignity of the Person; and 
it is the Divinity that stamps the value upon the suffering 
humanity. And hence also it is that St. John so emphatically 
observes, that it is the blood of Jesus Christ his Son (that Son 
whom the Apostle everywhere describes under the most lofty 
characters, as particularly John i.) which ' cleanseth us from all 
sin u .' Such is the Scripture way of commemorating our Lord 
and his passion, and such the way of all the ancient churches of 
God : be this our pattern, as it ought to be for our commemora- 
tions in the holy Communion. 

III. But I observed, that there was a third or a fourth ren- 
dering of the same words, efc rrjv Ipty avapvriviv : ' for a memorial 
of me ;' or, ' for my memorial,' which is more strictly literal. This 
rendering is not much different from the two former, but contains 
and includes both : for a memorial supposes and takes in both 

T Heb. i. 2, 3. s Heb. ix. 13, 14. ' See Bull, Opp. p. 19, and 

Wolfius in loc. u i John i. 7. 

CH. in. in the Holy Communion. 59 

a remembrance and a commemoration. Whether it superadds 
anything to them, and makes the idea still larger or fuller, is 
the question. If it carries in it any tacit allusion to the sacrifi- 
cial memorials of the Old Testament, it may then be conceived 
to add to the idea of commemoration the idea of acceptable and 
well pleasing, viz. to Almighty God. I build not upon dvap-vrja-is 
being twice used in the Septuagint as the name for a sacrificial 
memorial x ; for the usual sense of the word, in the same Septua- 
gint, is different, having no relation to sacrifice : but thus far may 
be justly pleaded, from the nature and reason of the thing, that 
the service of the Eucharist (the most proper part of evangelical 
worship, and most solemn religious act of the Christian Church) 
must be understood to ascend up ' for a memorial before God,' in 
as strict a sense, at least, as Cornelius's alms and prayers were 
said so to do y ; or as the 'prayers of the saints' go up as sweet 
odours, mystical incense z , before God. Indeed, the incense and 
sacrificial memorials of the old Testament were mostly typical of 
evangelical worship or Christian services, and were acceptable to 
God under that view ; and therefore it cannot be doubted but 
the true rational incense, viz. Gospel services, rightly performed, 
(and among these more especially the Eucharistical service,) are 
the acceptable memorials in God's sight. Whether there was 
any such allusion intended in the name avd/jivrja-Ls, when our Lord 
recommended the observance of the Eucharist as his memorial, 
cannot be certainly determined, since the name might carry in it 
such an allusion, or might be without it ; but as to the thing, 
that such worship rightly performed has the force and value of 
any memorial elsewhere mentioned in Scripture (sacrificial or 
other) cannot be doubted ; and the rest is not worth disputing, 
or would make too large a digression in this place. 

Before I dismiss the word di/d/iwjo-tj, it may not be improper to 
note, that it occurs but once more in the New Testament, where 
St. Paul speaks of the 'commemoration of sins a ,' made once a year, 

x Levit. xxiv. 7. Numb. x. 21. 333, &c. Dodwell, Tncensing no 

y Acts x. 4. Apostolical Tradition, pp. 36, 37, 

z Rev. v. 8; viii. 3, 4. Psalm cxli. 38. 

I. Compare Malach. i. n. Vid. a 'Apd/u^cris a-nap-riSm tear' tviav- 

^itringa, in Apocalyps. pp. 214, &c. TOV. Heb. x. 3. 

60 Commetnoration of Christ CH. in. 

under the old Testament, on the great day of expiation ; when 
the High Priest was to ' confess all the iniquities of the children 
of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins V There 
was dvdfivrja-is a/*aprta>/, commemoration of sins : but under the 
Gospel it is happily changed into dvdfi.vr)<ris rov Xpia-rov, com- 
memoration of Christ. There sins were remembered ; here for- 
giveness of sins : a remarkable privilege of the Gospel economy 
above the legal. Not but that there was forgiveness also under 
the Old Testament, legal and external forgiveness by the law, and 
mystical forgiveness under the law, by virtue of the sacrifice of 
Christ foreordained, and foreshadowed : but under the Gospel, 
forgiveness is clearly and without a figure declared, and for all 
sins repented of ; and there is no remembrance of them more c ; 
no commemoration of them by legal sacrifices, but instead thereof 
a continual commemoration of Christ's sacrifice for the ' remis- 
sion of sins,' in the Christian Sacraments. There must indeed 
be confession of sins, and forsaking them also under the Gospel 
dispensation : but then it is without the burden of ritual expia- 
tions and ceremonial atonements : for the many and grievous 
sacrifices are all converted into one easy (and to every good man 
delightful) commemoration of the all-sufficient sacrifice in the 
holy Communion. But I return. 

Hitherto I have been considering the Eucharistical commemo- 
ration as a memorial before God, which is the highest view of it : 
but I must not omit to take notice, that it is a memorial also 
before men, in the same sense as the paschal service was. Of 
the Passover it is said : ' This day shall be unto you for a 
memorial, and you shall keep it a feast to the Lord d .' It is 
here called a feast to the Lord, and a memorial to the people : 
not but that it was a memorial also to the Lord, in the large 
sense of memorial before mentioned, (as every pious and grateful 
acknowledgment to God for mercies received is). But in the 
stricter sense of memorial, it was such only to the people. It is 
further said in the same chapter, of the paschal service : ' Ye 
shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons 

for ever And when your children shall say unto you, What 

b Vid. Levit. xvi. 21. c Jer. xxxi. 34. d Exod. xii. 14. 

CH. in. -in the Holy Communion. 61 

mean you by this service ? ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the 
Lord's Passover, who passed over the houses of the children of 
Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our 
houses e .' And in the next chapter f : ' It shall be for a sign unto 
thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, 
that the Lord's law may be in thy mouth,' <fec. In such a sense 
as this, the service of the Eucharist is a memorial left to the 
Church of Christ, to perpetuate the memory of that great deli- 
verance from the bondage of sin and Satan (of which the former 
deliverance from Egyptian bondage was but a type) to all 
succeeding generations. By this solemn service, besides other 
uses, God has admirably provided for the bulk of mankind, that 
they may be constantly and visibly reminded of what it so much 
concerns them both to know and attend to. It is to the 
illiterate instead of books, and answers the purpose better than 
a thousand monitors without it might do. Jesus Christ is 
hereby 'set forth crucified?,' as it were, before their eyes, in 
order to make the stronger impression. 

I may further observe, that as all the Passovers, after the first, 
were a kind of representations and commemorations of that 
original h , so all our Eucharistical Passovers are a sort of com- 
memorations of the original Eucharist. Which I the rather take 
notice of, because I find an ancient Father, (if we may depend 
upon a Fragment,) Hippolytus, who was a disciple of Irenaeus, 
representing the thing in that view : for commenting on Prov. 
ix. 2, ' Wisdom hath furnished her table,' he writes thus : 
' Namely, the promised knowledge of the Holy Trinity ; and also 
his precious and undefiled body and blood, which are daily 
administered at the mystical and sacred table, sacrificed for a 
memorial of that ever memorable and original table of the 
mystical Divine Supper 1 .' Upon which words I may remark, by 
the way, that here is mention made of the body and blood as 

Exod. xii. 24, 26, if. Ka.Teira.yyf \\opf vtjv. Ka! rb Tifjuov KO.I 

f Exod. xiii. 9. Compare Deut. axpavrov avrov <rS>na Kal afjta, oirep 

xvi. 3. & Gal. iii. I. ev TTJ (ivcrnKfj Kal Of la. Tpairtfyi Kaff 

h See Johnson's Unbloody Sacri- fKtiffrrjv tir IT f \ofvTM, 0v6fj.fva eis ava- 

fice, part n. p. 44. fivrj(Tiv rijs n.tifj.vii<rrov Kal irpdar^s 

' Kai ^Toi/ucuraro TTJV favrrjs Tpdnre- J/TJS rov fj.v(niKuv Qfiov Seiirvov. Hip- 

fav r^v eiriyi/oifftv TTJS a-yi'a? rpioSos polyt. vol. i. p. 282, ed. Fabric. 

62 Commemoration of Christ's Death CH. iv. 

sacrificed in the Eucharist twenty or thirty years before Cyprian, 
if the Fragment be certainly Hippolytus's, and then it is the 
earliest in its kind, though not higher than the third century. 
As to his making all succeeding Eucharists memorials of the 
first, the notion interferes not with their being memorials also of 
our Lord and his passion, as before explained, but all the several 
views will hang well together. 

Thus far I have been considering the Christian Eucharist as a 
remembrance, and a commemoration, and a memorial of Christ 
our Lord. I could not avoid intermixing something here and 
there of our Lord's death and passion, which have so close an 
affinity with the subject of this chapter : nevertheless that article 
may require a more distinct consideration, and therefore it may 
be proper to have a separate chapter for it. 


Of the Commemoration of tlie Death of our Lord made in the 
Holy Communion. 

IT is not sufficient to commemorate the death of Christ, with- 
out considering what his death means, what were the moving 
reasons for it, and what its ends and uses. The subtilties of 
Socinus and his followers have made this inquiry necessary : for 
it is to very little purpose 'to shew the Lord's death till he 
come,' by the service of the Eucharist, if we acknowledge not 
that Lord which the Scriptures set forth, nor that death which 
the New Testament teaches. As to Lord, who and what he is, 
I have said what I conceived sufficient, in the preceding chapter : 
and now I am to say something of that death which he suffered, 
as a willing sacrifice to Divine Justice for the sins of mankind. 
It is impossible that a man should come worthily to the holy 
Communion, while he perverts the prime ends and uses of the 
sacrifice there commemorated, and sets up a righteousness of 
his own, independent of it, frustrating the grace of God in 
Christ, and making him to have 'died in vainJ.' 

3 ' Quidam vero, quomodo aliquan- lunt, et adhuc ignorantes Dei justi- 
do Judaei, et Christianos se dici vo- tiam suam volunt constituere, etiam 

CH. iv. in the Holy Communion. 63 

The death of Christ, by the Scripture account, was properly a 
vicarious punishment of sin, a true and proper expiatory sacrifice 
for the sins of mankind : and therefore it ought to be remembered 
as such, in the memorial we make of it at the Lord's table. 
I shall cite some texts, just to give the reader a competent 
notion of the Scripture doctrine in this article ; though indeed 
the thing is so plain, and so frequently inculcated, from one end 
of the Scriptures to the other, that no man (one would think) 
who is not previously disposed to deceive himself, or has im- 
bibed strong prejudices, could either reject it or miscon- 
ceive it. 

i. That the sufferings of Christ had the nature of punishments, 
rather than of mere calamities, is proved from what is said by 
the Prophet Isaiah, as follows : ' He hath borne our griefs and 
carried our sorrows He was wounded for our transgressions, 
he was bruised for our iniquities : the chastisement of our 

peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed 

The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all For the 

transgression of my people was he stricken When thou shalt 
make his soul an offering for sin, &c. He was numbered with 
the transgressors, and bare the sins of many V What can all 
these words mean, if they amount not to punishment for the 
sins of mankind 1 Evasions have been invented, and they have 
been often refuted. 

To the same purpose we read in the New Testament, that 
'he was delivered for our offences 1 ,' that he 'died for all,' was 
'made sin for us,' when he 'knew no sin m ;' 'was made a 
curse for us n ,' 'died for our sins ,' 'gave himself for our sins*',' 
' tasted death for every man !,' and the like. To interpret these 
and other such texts of dying for our advantage, without relation 
to sin and the penalty due to it, is altogether forced and un- 

temporibus nostris, temporibus aper- k Isa. liii. 4 12 : cp. Outram de 

tae gratiae, &c Quod ait Aposto- Sacrific. pp. 319, &c. 328. I Pet. 

lus de lege, hoc DOS istis dicimus de ii. 24. and Outram p. 329, &c. 

natura ; si per naturam justitia, ergo ' Rom. iv. 25. 

Christus gratis mortuus eat.' Au- m 2 Cor. v. 14; 15, 21. John xi. 

gustin. Serai, xiii. in Johan. vi. 50, 51, 52. 

Opp. torn. v. pp. 645, 646, edit. " Gal. iii. 13. i Cor. xv. 3. 

Bened. p Gal. i. 4. i Heb. ii. 9. 

64 Commemoration of Christ's Death CH. iv. 

natural, contrary to the custom of language, and to the obvious 
import of very plain words. 

2. That our blessed Lord was in his death a proper expiatory 
sacrifice, (if ever there was any,) is as plain from the New Tes- 
tament as words can make it. He gave ' his life a ransom for 
many 1 ",' was 'the Lamb of God' which was to 'take away the 
sins of the world 8 ,' 'died for the ungodly',' 'gave himself a 
ransom for all u ,' once 'suffered for sins, the just for the unjust x ,' 
'gave himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a 
sweet-smelling savoury.' ' Christ our Passover was sacrificed 
for us z ,' 'offered up himself*,' 'to bear the sins of many**,' has 
'put away sin by the sacrifice of himself 6 .' We have been 
' redeemed with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb with- 
out blemish and without spot d .' These are not mere allusions 
to the sacrifices of the Old Testament, but they are interpre- 
tative of them, declaring their typical nature, as prefiguring 
the grand sacrifice, and centering in it : which, besides other 
considerations, appears very evidently from the whole design 
and tenor of the Epistle to the Hebrews ; signifying, that the 
legal sacrifices were allusions to, and prefigurations of, the 
grand sacrifice. 

3. That from this sacrifice, and by virtue of it, we receive the 
benefit of atonement, redemption, propitiation, justification, re- 
conciliation, remission, &c., is no less evident from abundance of 
places in the New Testament. ' Through our Lord Jesus Christ 
we have received the atonement,' and 'we are reconciled to God 
by his death 6 .' 'Him God hath set forth to be a propitiation 
through faith in his blood f .' 'He is the propitiation for our 
sins, for the sins of the whole world g.' ' We are justified by 
his blood V 'redeemed to God by his blood',' 'cleansed from all 
sin by his blood V 'washed from our sins in his blood 1 ;' and 
the robes of the saints are washed and made white only in the 

" Matt. xx. 28. s John i. 29. * Rom. v. 6. u i Tim. ii. 6. 

* i Pet. iii. 1 8 ; compare ii. 21 ; iv. i. - v Ephes. v. i. * i Cor. v. 7. 

a Heb. vii. 27; x: 12; is. 14. b Heb. ix. 28. c Heb. ix. 26; 

compare x. 12. d i Pet. i. rg. e Rom. v. 10, u. f Rom. iii. 25. 

e i John ii. 2; iv. 10. h Rom. v. 9. ' Rev. v. 9. k r John i. 7. 
1 Rev. i. 5. 

CH. iv. in the Holy Communion. 65 

blood of the Lamb m . By himself he 'purged our sins",' viz. 
when he shed his blood upon the cross : and our redemption is 
through his blood . He hath reconciled us to God by the cross P, 
'in the body of his flesh through death I.' 'God was in Christ 
reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses 
unto them 1 ".' His blood was 'shed for many, for the remission 
of sins 8 ,' 'and without shedding of blood is no remission f .' It 
is this 'blood of sprinkling' that 'speaketh better things than 
the blood of Abel u : ' and it is by the 'blood of Jesus ' that men 
must enter into 'the holiest v ,' as many as enter. I have thrown 
these texts together without note or comment ; for they need 
none, they interpret themselves. Let but the reader observe, 
with what variety of expression this great truth is inculcated, 
that our salvation chiefly stands in the meritorious sufferings of 
our Saviour Christ. The consideration whereof made St. Paul 
say, ' I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus 
Christ, and him crucified*:' namely, because this was a most 
essential article, the very sum and substance of the Gospel. ' In 
these and in a great many more passages that lie spread in all 
the parts of the New Testament, it is as plain as words can 
make anything, that the death of Christ is proposed to us as 
our sacrifice and reconciliation, our atonement and redemption. 
So it is not possible for any man, that considers all this, to 
imagine that Christ's death was only a confirmation of his 
Gospel, a pattern of a holy and patient suffering of death, 
and a necessary preparation to his resurrection . . . By this all 
the high commendations of his death amount only to this, that 
he by dying has given a vast credit and authority to his Gospel, 
which was the powerfullest mean possible to redeem us from 
sin, and to reconcile us to God. But this is so contrary to 
the whole design of the New Testament, and to the true im- 
portance of that great variety of phrases, in which this matter 
is set out, that at this rate of expounding Scripture we can 

m Rev. vii. 14. " Heb. i. 3. Ephesians i. 7 ; compare r Corin- 
thians vi. 20 ; Coloas. i. 14. P Eph. ii. 16. ^ Coloss. i. 22. 
r 2 Cor. v. 18, 19. s Matt. xxvi. 28. ' Heb. ix. 22. u Heb. xii. 24. 
v Heb. x. 19. xi Cor. ii. 2. 

66 Commemoration of Christ's Death CH. iv. 

never know what we may build upon ; especially when the 
great importance of this thing, and of our having right notions 
concerning it, is well considered y.' 

The least that we can infer from the texts above mentioned is, 
that there is some very particular virtue, merit, efficacy, in the 
death of Christ, that God's acceptance of sinners, though penitent, 
(not perfect,) depended entirely upon it. Common sacrifices 
could never ' make the comers thereunto perfect 2 : ' but it was 
absolutely necessary that the heavenly things should be purified 
with some better sacrifice a . Which is so true, that our Lord is 
represented as entering into the holy of holies (that is heaven) 
'by his own blood V where 'he ever liveth to make interces- 
sion for' those that 'come unto God by him c .' The efficacy 
even of his intercession above (great and powerful as he is) 
yet depends chiefly upon that circumstance, his having entered 
thither by ' his own blood ; ' that is to say, upon the merit of 
his death and passion, and the atonement thereby made. His 
intercession belongs to his priestly office, and that supposes the 
offering before made : for there was a necessity that he should 
'have somewhat to offer d ,' and nothing less than himself 6 . 
Seeing therefore that, in order to our redemption, Christ suffered 
as a piacular victim, (which must be understood to be in our 
stead,) and that there was some necessity he should do so, and 
that his prevailing intercession at God's right hand now, and to 
the end of the world, stands upon that ground, and must do so ; 
what can we think less, but that some very momentous reasons 
of justice or of government (both which resolve at length into 
one) required that so it should be. We are not indeed com- 
petent judges of all the reasons or measures of an all-wise God, 
with respect to his dealings with his creatures ; neither are we 
able to argue, as it were, beforehand, with sufficient certainty, 

y Bishop Burnet on Article II. pp. shews wherein principally the virtue 

70, 71. z Heb. x. I. a Ib. ix. 23. of his intercession consists. 

b Heb. ix. 12. Note, it is not c Heb. vii. 25 ; cp. Rom. viii. 
only said that Christ entered into 33,34. Heb. ii. 17; ix. 24. i John 
heaven by his own blood, but he is ii. 2. d Heb. viii. 3 ; v. i. 
there also considered as the Lamb e Heb. ix. 14, 25, 26, 28 ; corn- 
slain : Eev. v. 6. Which further pare i. 3. 

CH. iv. in the Holy Communion. 67 

about the terms of acceptance, which his wisdom, or his holiness, 
or his justice, might demand. But we ought to take careful 
heed to what he has said, and what he has done, and to draw 
the proper conclusions from both. One thing is plain, from the 
terms of the first covenant, made in Paradise, that Divine wisdom 
could have admitted man perfectly innocent to perfect happiness, 
without the intervention of any sacrifice, or any Mediator : and 
it is no less plain, from the terms of the new covenant, that there 
was some necessity (fixed in the very reason and nature of things) 
that a valuable consideration, atonement, or sacrifice, should be 
offered, to make fallen man capable of eternal glory f . The truth 
of the thing done proves its necessity, (besides what I have alleged 
from express Scripture concerning such necessity,) for it is not 
imaginable that so great a thing would have been done upon 
earth, and afterwards, as it were, constantly commemorated in 
heaven , if there had not been very strong and pressing reasons 
for it, and such as made it as necessary, (in the Divine counsels,) 
as it was necessary for a God of infinite perfection to be wise and 
holy, just and good. When I said constantly commemorated in 
heaven, I had an eye to Christ's continual intercession 11 , which is 
a kind of commemoration of the sacrifice which he once offered 
upon the cross, and is always pleading the merit of. Which 
shews still of what exceeding great moment that sacrifice was, 
for the reconciling the acceptance of sinful men with the ends of 
Divine government, the manifestation of Divine glory, and the 
unalterable perfection of the Divine attributes. And if that 

f ' Si non fuisset peccatum, non ne- tentionis legalium victimarum ; prior 

cesse fuerat Filium Dei agnum fieri, peracta in templo, altera in ipso 

nee opus fuerat eum in carne posi- penetrali : Christi prior in terris, 

turn jugulari, sed mansisset hoc quod posterior in caelo. Prior tameii ilia 

in principle erat, Deus verbum : ve- non sacrificii praeparatio, sed sacrifi- 

rum quoniam intravit peccatum in cium : posterior non tarn sacrificium, 

hunc niundum, peccati autem neces- quam sacrificii facti commemoratio.' 

sitas propitiationem requirit, et pro- Grot, de Satisfact. in fine, 

pitiatio non fit nisi per hostiam, h 'Christ is not entered into the 

necessarium fuit provideri hostiam holy places made with hands, (which 

pro peccato.' Orig. in Num. Horn, are the figures of the true) ; but into 

xxiv. p. 362. heaven itself, now to appear in the 

' Est ergo duplex, ut legalium presence of God for us.' Heb. ix. 

quarundam victimarum, ita Christi 24. 
oblatio, prior mactationis, altera os- 

F 2 

68 Commemoration of Christ's Death CH. iv. 

sacrifice is represented and pleaded in heaven by Christ himself, 
for remission of sins, that shews that there is an intrinsic virtue, 
value, merit in it, for the purposes intended : and it shews 
further, how rational and how proper our Eucharistical service 
is, as commemorating the same sacrifice here below, which our 
Lord himself commemorates above. God may reasonably require 
of us this humble acknowledgment, this self-abasement, that after 
we have done our best, we are offenders still, though penitent 
offenders, and have not done all that we ought to have done ; 
and that therefore we can claim nothing in virtue of our own 
righteousness considered by itself, separate from the additional 
virtue of that all-sufficient sacrifice, which alone can render even 
our best services accepted 5 . 

If it should be objected, that we have a covenant claim by the 
Gospel, and that that covenant was entirely owing to Divine 
mercy, and that so we resolve not our right and title into any 
strict merits of our OAVII, but into the pure mercy of God, and 
that this suffices without any respect to a sacrifice : I say, if 
this should be pleaded, I answer that no such covenant claim 
appears, separate from all respect to a sacrifice. The covenant 
is that persons so and so qualified shall be acceptable in and 
through Christ, and by virtue of that very sacrifice which he 
entered with into the holy of holies, and by which he now 
intercedes and appears for us. Besides, it is not right to think 
nor is it modest or pious to say, that in the economy of every 
man's salvation, the groundwork only is God's, by settling the 
covenant, and the finishing part ours, by performing the con- 
ditions ; but the true order or method is for our Lord to be 
both the Author and Finisher of the whole. The covenant, or 
rather, the covenant charter, was given soon after the fall to 
mankind in general, and has been carried on through successive 
generations by new stipulating acts in every age : so likewise was 
the atonement made (or considered as made) once for all, but 
is applied to particulars, or individuals, continually, by means of 
Christ's constant abiding intercession. Therefore it is not barely 

' See our Xlth Article, with Bishop Burnet's Notes upon it, and Mr. 

CH. iv. in the Holy Communion. 69 

our performing the conditions, that finishes our salvation, but it is 
our Lord's applying his merits to our performances that finishes 
all. Perhaps this whole matter may be more clearly represented 
by a distinct enumeration of the several concurring means to the 
same end. i. The Divine philanthropy has the first hand in our 
salvation, is the primary or principal cause. 2. Our performing 
the duties required, faith and repentance, by the aid of Divine 
grace, is the conditional cause. 3. The sacrifice of Christ's 
death, recommending and rendering acceptable our imperfect 
performances, is the meritorious cause. 4. The Divine ordinances, 
and more particularly the two Sacraments, (so far as distinct 
from conditional,) are the instrumental k causes, in and by which 
God applies to men fitly disposed the virtue of that sacrifice. 
Let these things be supposed only, at present, for clearer concep- 
tion : proofs of everything will appear in due time and place. 
By this account may be competently understood the end and 
use of commemorating the sacrifice of our Lord's passion in the 
holy Communion. It corresponds with the commemoration made 
above : it is suing for pardon, in virtue of the same plea that 
Christ himself sues in, on our behalf : it is acknowledging our 
indispensable need of it, and our dependence upon it ; and con- 
fessing all our other righteousness to be as nothing without it. 
In a word, it is at once a service of thanksgiving (to Father, Son, 
and Holy Ghost) for the sacrifice of our redemption, and a 
service also of self-humiliation before God, angels, and men. 

If it should be objected here, that shewing forth our Lord's 
death, cannot well be understood of shewing to God, who wants 
not to have anything shewn to him, all things being naked 
before him ; it is obvious to reply, that he permits and com- 
mands us, in innumerable instances, to present ourselves and our 
addresses before him : and though the very word KarnyyeXXetv, 
which St. Paul makes use of in this case 1 , is not elsewhere used 
for shewing to God, yet dvayyeXXeiv, a word of like import, is m ; 

k I understand 'instrument' here in instruments: which shall be ex- 
no other sense, but as deeds of con- plained hereafter, 
veyance, or forms of investiture, such ' I Cor. xi. 26. Tbv Odvarov rov 
as a ring, a crosier, letters patent, Kvpiov Ka.Ta.Yyf\\tTf. 
broad seal, and the like, are called m ' Avayye\\w ffij^epov Kvpi<f rf 

jo Commemoration of Christ? s Death CH. iv. 

so that there is no just objection to be drawn merely from the 
phraseology. As to the reason of the thing, since addresses to 
God have always gone along with the representation made in 
the Communion, and are part of the commemoration, it must be 
understood that we represent what we do represent, to God, as 
well as to men. 

Having thus despatched what I intended concerning the 
remembrance, commemoration, or memorial of our Lord, and 
of his passion, made in this Sacrament, I might now proceed to 
a new chapter. But there is an incidental point or two to 
be discussed, which seem to fall in our way, and which therefore 
I shall here briefly consider, before I go further. 

i. It has been suggested by some n , that the notion of remem- 
brance, or commemoration, in this service, is an argument 
against present receiving of benefits in, or by it : Christ and his 
benefits are to be remembered or commemorated here ; therefore 
neither he nor his benefits are supposed to be actually received 
at the time. This is not the place proper for examining the 
question about present or actual benefits : but it may be proper, 
while we are stating the notion of remembrance, to obviate an 
objection drawn from it, in order to clear our way so far. I see 
no force at all in the argument, unless it could be proved that 
the word remembrance must always be referred to something 
past or absent : which is a supposition not warranted by the 
customary use of language. ' Remember thy Creator :' does it 
follow, that the Creator is not present ] ' Remember the Sabbath 
day' (when present, I suppose) 'to keep it holy.' Let remem- 
brance signify calling to mind ; may we not call to mind present 

0e< fjiov. K.T.\. Deut. xxvi. 3. Cp. modo tribui posse : non enim dici 

Psal. xxxviii. 18. possumus eorum recordari quibus 

n ' Jam constat homines ibi non tune cum maxime praesentibus fmi- 

participare, vel sortiri, vel accipere mur, quum recordatio mere ad prae- 

sanguinem Christi : participatio enim, terita . pertineat.' Przipcovius ad 

vel sortitio, rei praesentis est ; at I Cor. xi. 20, p. 91. 

benedictio, quae hoc loco idem est Archbishop Tillotson, explaining 

quod commemoratio, rei praeteritae the Scripture notion of remembrance, 

esse solet.' Smalc. contr. Frantz. p. says : ' Remembrance is the actual 

331. thought of what we do habitually 

' Notandum recordationem rebus know To remember a person, or 

vere et realiter praesentibus nullo thing, is to call them to mind upon 

CH. iv. in the Holy Communion. 71 

benefits, which are invisible, and which easily slip out of our 
thoughts, or perhaps rarely occur, being thrust out by sensible 
things? Or let it signify keeping in mind; if so, there is no 
impropriety in saying, that we keep in mind what is present and 
not seen, by the help of what is seen. Let it signify commemo- 
rating: may not a man commemorate a benefaction, suppose, 
which is in some sense past, but is present also in its abiding 
fruits and influences, which are the strongest motives for com- 
memorating the same 1 Indeed it would be hard to vindicate 
the wisdom of commemorating what is past or absent, were 
there not some present benefits resulting from it. I presume, 
if a benefaction were wholly lost or sunk, the usual commemo- 
ration of it would soon sink with it : the present benefits are 
what keep it up. We do not say that Christ's death, or Christ's 
crucifixion, is now present; we know it is past: but the benefits 
remain ; and while we remember one as past, we call to mind, 
or keep in mind, the other also, as present, but invisible, and 
therefore easily overlooked. I see no impropriety in this man- 
ner of speaking : nor if a person should be exhorted to remem- 
ber that he has a soul to be saved, that such an admonition 
would imply, that his soul is absent from his body. 

2. Another incidental question, like the former, is whether, 
from the notion of remembrance in this sacrament, a conclusive 
argument may be formed against the corporal presence, and 
particularly against transubstantiation 1 Notwithstanding that 
we have many clear demonstrations against that strange doc- 
trine, yet I should be far from rejecting any additional argument, 
provided it were solid and just : but I perceive not of what use 
the word remembrance can be in this case, or how any certain 
argument can be drawn from it. The words are 'remembrance 
of me :' therefore, if any absence can be proved from thence, it 
must be the absence of what ME there stands for, that is, of the 

all proper and fitting occasions, to I see not why present benefits may 

think actually of them, so as to do not thus be remembered, and deserve 

that which the remembrance of them to be so, rather than past, or absent, 

does require, or prompt us to.' Serm. or distant benefits, 
liv. p. 638. fol. edit. 

72 Commemoration of Christfs Death CH. iv. 

whole person of Christ ; and so it appears as conclusive against 
a spiritual presence, as against a corporal one, and proves too 
much to prove anything. Surely we may remember Christ, in 
strict propriety of expression, and yet believe him to be present 
at the same time ; especially considering that he is ' always pre- 
sent with his Church, even to the end of the world P,' and that 
' where two or three are gathered together in his name, there' 
is he ' in the midst of them<i ;' and he has often told us of his 
dwelling in good men. So then, since it is not said, remem- 
brance of my body, but remembrance of me, and since it is 
certain, that one part at least of what ought to be remembered 
is present, (not absent,) therefore no argument can be justly 
drawn merely from the word remembrance, as necessai-ily infer- 
ring the absence of the thing remembered. 

But if it had been said, remembrance of my body, or blood, 
yet neither so would the argument be conclusive, if we attend 
strictly to the Romish persuasion. For they do not assert any 
visible presence of Christ's body or blood, but they say, that his 
natural body and blood are invisibly, or in a spiritual manner, 
present, under the accidents, or visible appearances of bread 
and wine. Now what is invisible is so far imperceptible, unless 
by the eye of faith, and wants as much to be called to mind as 
any absent thing whatsoever. Therefore remembrance, or calling 
to mind, might be very proper in this case : for what is out of 
sight may easily slip out of mind. 

If any particular restrained sense of remembrance should be 
thought on, to help out the argument ; there will still remain a 
great difficulty, namely, to prove that avanvrja-is, in the words of 
the institution, must necessarily be confined to such a restrained 
sense : which being utterly uncapable of any certain proof, the 
argument built thereupon must of consequence fall to the ground. 
Seeing, therefore, that there are two very considerable flaws in 
the argument, as proving too much one way, and too little the 
other way, it appears not prudent to rest an otherwise clear 
clause upon so precarious a bottom, or to give the Romanists a 

P Matt, xxviii. 20. i Matt, xviii. 20. 

OH. iv. in the Holy Communion. 73 

very needless handle for triumph in this article, when we have a 
multitude of other arguments, strong and irresistible, against 
the corporal or local presence in the holy Communion. 

As to the continuance of the Eucharistical service till our Lord 
comes, there is a plain reason for it, because the Christian dis- 
pensation is bound up in it, and must expire with it. And 
there is no necessity of supposing, as some do r , any allusion 
to the absence of his body. The text does not say, till his body 
appears, but till he come : that is, till he comes to put an end to 
this sacramental service, (and to all other services proper to a 
state of probation,) and to assign us our reward. The reference 
is to the ultimate end, where this and all other probationary 
duties, as such, must cease, and to which they now look, expect- 
ing to be so crowned and completed : so that if there be an 
antithesis intended in the words, it is between present service 
and future glory, not between present and absent body. 

However, though the argument will not bear in the view 
before mentioned, yet it is right and just to argue, that the sign, 
or memorial of anything, is not the very thing signified or com- 
memorated, but is distinct from it. Bread and wine, the symbols 
of Christ's natural body and blood, are not literally that very 
natural body and blood ; neither is the sacrament of Christ's 
passion literally the passion itself : thus far we may argue justly 
against transubstantiation, but supposing at the same time the 
strict sense of the word Sacrament to be the true one. The ar- 
gument is as good against the Socinians also, only by being 
transversed : for the things signified and commemorated are not 
the signs or memorials, but something else. And therefore, to 
make out the true notion of sacramental signs, there must be 
inward and invisible graces as well as outward visible signs : of 
which more in the sequel. 

Having done with the first and principal end of the Sacrament, 
namely, the commemoration of Christ as described in Scripture, 

r ' Quia futuri adventus Domini et ob oculos positions praeteriti ejus 

mentio sit, palam est, quasi absentia beneficii, donee ipse adveniens desi- 

desiderium, et, ut ita dicam, defec- derium hoc nostrum impleat.' Przip- 

tum suppleri, hac repraesentatione covius ad i Cor. xi. 24. 

74 The Consecration of CH. v. 

and of his death according to the true sacrificial notion of it ; I 
now proceed to shew how this commemoration is performed, or 
by what kind of service it is solemnized, and what is further in- 
timated or effected in and by that service. 


Of the Consecration of the Elements of Bread and Wine in the 
Holy Communion. 

THE first thing we have to take notice of in the Sacramental 
service is the consecration of the elements : ' Jesus took bread 
and blessed it s .' 'The cup of blessing which we bless*,' &c. 
Here the points to be inquired into are : i. Whether the elements 
of bread and wine in the Eucharist are really blessed, consecrated 
sanctified, and in what sense. 2. Supposing they are blessed, 
&< , by whom or how they are so. 3. What the blessing or 
CGi ecration amounts to. 

i. The first inquiry is, whether the elements may be justly 
said to be blessed or consecrated : for this is a point which I find 
disputed by some ; not many, nor very considerable. Smalcius, 
a warm man, and who seldom knew any bounds, seems to have 
been of opinion, that no proper, no sacerdotal benediction at all 
belonged to the bread and cup before receiving, nor indeed after; 
but that the communicants, upon receiving the elements, gave 
praise to God, and that was all the benediction which St. Paul 
speaks of u . So he denies that any benediction at all passed to 
the elements. And he asserts besides, that whatever benediction 
there was, it was not so much from the administrator, or 
officiating minister, as from the communicants themselves : for 
which he has a weak pretence from St. Paul's words, ' we bless,' 
that is, says he, we communicants do it. Thus far Smalcius. 
But the cooler and wiser Socinians go not these lengths. Crellius 

8 Matt. xxvi. 26. * I Cor. x. 16. tibus, interpretatur) sed calicem quo 

u ' Notandum insuper est, verba sumpto benedicimus : mox enim 

Pauli,' calix benedictionis,'non signi- additur, ' quern benedicimus,' nempe 

ficare calicem benedictum (ut Frant- omnes qui ad mensam Domini acce- 

zius, una cum Pontificiis, aliquid dimus.' Valent. Smal. contr. Frantz. 

divinum sibi et suis hac re arrogan- p. 331. 

CH. v. the JBread and Wine. 75 

expressly allows, that a benediction is conferred upon the cup, 
as it is sanctified by thanksgiving, and made a kind of libation 
unto God x . He goes further, and distinguishes sacramental 
consecration from that of common meals, as amounting to a 
sanctification of the elements for high and sacred purposes y. 
The Racovian Catechism allows also of a sanctification of the 
elements, made by prayer and thanksgiving 2 . Wolzogenius, 
afterwards, seems to waver and fluctuate between inclination 
and reason, and scarce knows where to fix ; sometimes admitting 
a consecration of the elements, and soon after resolving all into 
bare giving of thanks to God a . I suppose all his hesitancy was 
owing to his not understanding the notion of relative holiness, 
(which he might have admitted, as Crellius did, consistently with 
his other principles,) or to some apprehension he was under, 
lest the admitting of a real sanctification should infer some 
secret operation of the Holy Ghost. However, to make Scrip- 
ture bend to any preconceived opinions is not treating sacred 
Writ with the reverence which belongs to it. St. Paul is express, 
that the cup, meaning the wine, is blessed, or sanctified, in the 
Eucharist : and if the wine be really sanctified in that solemn 
service, no man of tolerable capacity can make any question as 
to the bread, whether that be not sanctified also. 

It is of small moment to plead that fi/xapia-rflv and cuXoyftj/ 
are often used promiscuously, and that the former properly 

* ' Benedictio autem ista refertur tiarum actione imprimis poculum 

primum ad Deum et Christum, et istud, quo ad Christi sanguinis fusi- 

in gratiarum actione (uude etiam hie onem repraesentandam utimur, sanc- 

ritus antiquitus Eucharistiae nomen tificatur et consecratur.' Crellius, 

obtinuit) consistit : sed simul etiam ibid. p. 306. 

transit ad calicem, quatenus divini z ' Qui calici huic benedicunt, id 

nominis benedictione et gratiarum est, cum gratiarum actione, et nomi- 

actione sanctificatur calix iste, et sic nis Domini celebratione sanctificant,' 

Domino quodammodo libatur.' Crel- &c. Racov. Catech. sect. vi. c. 4. p. 

lius in i Cor. x. 16. Opp. torn. ii. p. 237. edit. 1659. 

306. a c y ox benedicendi .... significat 

y ' Non tantum earn gratiarum ac- usitatam illam gratiarum actionem, 

tionem, quae etiam in vulgari cibo- seu consecrationem panis, &c 

rum et potus usu adhibetur, intelligi Calicem benedicere est, Deum pro 

arbitramur, qua scilicet gratiae agun- potu, qui est in calice, extollere, 

tur pro poculo isto ; sed maxiine earn eique gratias agere.' Wolzog. in 

qua gratiae aguntur pro Christi fuso Matt. xxvi. 26. p. 408. 
pro nobis sanguine. Hac enim gra- 

76 The Consecration of CH. v. 

signifies giving thanks, and that bread and wine (for thus do some 
trifle) cannot be thanked : for since the words are often used 
promiscuously, and since evXoyelv is taken transitively in this 
very case by the Apostle b , it is next to self-evident that fi>xa- 
pto-Telv, so far as concerns this matter, cannot be taken in a sense 
exclusive of that transitive signification of eiXoyeu/ : for to do 
that is flatly to contradict the Apostle. No doubt but either 
of the words may (as circumstances happen) signify no more 
than thanking or praising God ; but here it is manifest, that, in 
this rite, both God is praised and the elements blessed : yea 
both are done at the same time, and in the self-same act ; and 
the Apostle's authority, without anything more, abundantly 
proves it. If the reader desires anything further, in so plain a 
case, he may please" to consult three very able judges of Biblical 
language, or of Greek phrases ; Buxtorf I mean, and Vorstius, 
and Casaubon, who have clearly and fully settled the true 
meaning of fixapiamlv and fvXoyelv, both in the general, and with 
respect to this particular case : I shall refer to the two first of 
them, and shall cite a few words from the third d . But to cut 
off all pretence drawn from the strict sense of ev^apio-Teiv, as im- 
porting barely thanksgiving unto God, it may be observed, that 
that word also is often used transitively 6 , as well as fvXoyelv, and 
then it imports or includes benediction : so far from truth is it, 
that it must necessarily exclude it. I may further add, that the 

b I Cor. x. 16. Ti iroriiptov rrjs 517. Cp. p. 533, and Albertin. de 

fit\oylas t> ev\oyovfji.ev. Eucharist, lib. i. c. 4. p. 8, &c. 

c Buxtorf. de Coena Domini, p. e EiixapierTrjOeWos apTov...tvxapi- 

311. Cp. Bucher. Antiq. Evangel. aTtjQtiffavrpo^v. Justin Mart. Apol. 

p. 369. Johan.Vorstius de Hebraism, i. p. 96. cp. 98. Tronijpia fvxo-pi<nflv 

N. T. part. i. p. 166, &c. .... rov (TIOTTIP'.OV) evxo,piffTr]fj.evov. 

d ' Evangelistae et Apostoius Pau- Iren. lib. i. c. 13. p. 60. vSap if t\bv 

lus...duobus verbis promiscue utun- fv^apKnovffiv. Clem. Alex. Strom, 

tur, ad declarandam Domini actio- i. p. 375- 

nem, ev\oye7v, et eu;api<rre?'... Note, that for the expressing this 
utraque vox a parte una, totam transitive sense of the Greek word, 
Domini actionem designat : nam some have contrived, not improperly, 
Christus in eodem actu, et Deum the English word eucharistize, im- 
Patrem laudavit, et gratias ei egit, porting thanksgiving towards God, 
et hoc amplius panem sanctificavit ; but so as at the same time to ex- 
hoc est, consecravit in usum Sacra- press the benediction imparted to 
menti,' &c. Casaub. Exercit. xvi. p. the elements in the same act. 

CH. v. the Bread and Wine. 77 

benedictions used f in the paschal solemnity may be an useful 
comment upon the benediction in the Eucharist. There the lay- 
ing hand upon the bread, and the taking up the cup, were signi- 
ficant intimations of a blessing transferred to the bread and 
wine, in virtue of the thanksgiving service at the same time 
performed. And by the way, from hence may be understood 
what St. Chrysostom observes upon i Cor. x. 16, 'The cup of 
blessing which we bless,' &c., on which he thus comments : ' He 
called it the cup of blessing, because while we hold it in our 
hands, we send up our hymns of praise to God, struck with 
admiration and astonishment at the ineffable gift,' &c.S That 
circumstance of holding the thing in hand while the prayers or 
praises were offering, was supposed to signify the derivation of a 
benediction, or consecration upon it. It is not material to dispute, 
whether the consecration formerly was performed by thanksgiving, 
or by prayer, or by both together : the forms might differ in dif- 
ferent churches, or at different times. But the point which we 
are now considering is, whether a benediction is really conveyed 
to the elements in this service, and whether they are really sanc- 
tified, or made holy. That they are so, is plain from the 
testimony of St. Paul before recited. 

2. As to Smalcius's pretence, before mentioned, concerning 
the benediction of the communicants, after their receiving the 
elements, it is a groundless fiction, and a violent perverting of 
the plain meaning of the text. In the paschal service, the bene- 
diction was performed by the master of the feast, (not by the 
whole company,) and before distribution : so was it likewise in 
the institution of this sacrament by our Lord. And all antiquity 

f See above, chap. ii. p. 495. where plainly speaks of prayer be- 
8 Tiorlipiov 8e ev\oyias ftcd\e<rev, sides, prayer for the descent of the 
eirtiSav aiirb jue-ra Xflpas e^oi/rey, Holy Ghost. "Orav Si Kal rb irvfv/j.a 
OTJTias avrbv', 0av/j,dovTS, rb aytov /caAj?, Kal T^V ^pLKw^fffrdrTiv 
fKir\rirr6iJ.evoi TTJS cuparov Scupeas. ^TriTeAr? Bvcriav, Kal rov KOIVOV irdvTcav 
K.T.A. (rvvfx&s ffpdirT-fjTai SeffirArov, TTOV rd- 
Note, though Chrysostom here 1-ofj.fv avrbv, elire /J.QI ; De Sacerdot. 
makes mention of hymns only, in lib. vi. c. 4. p. 424. ed. Bened. Corn- 
accounting for the name of eulogy, pare Theophyl. on John vi., who 
or blessing, yet he did not mean speaks as fully to the same pur- 
that hymns only were used at that pose, 
time in consecrating, for he else- 

78 The Consecration of CH. v. 

is consonant, that a sacerdotal blessing was previous to the deli- 
vering the sacred symbols 11 , made sacred by that benediction. 
And this is confirmed from hence, (as before hinted,) that an 
unworthy communicant is guilty of profane irreverence ; viz. to- 
wards what is supposed holy, before he receives it. As to St. 
Paul's expression, we bless, it means no more than if he had said, 
we Christians bless, meaning, by the proper officers. To strain 
a common idiom of speech to the utmost rigour is not right : 
it might as well be pleaded, that St. Paul must be present 
in person at every consecration ; for ordinarily, when a man 
says we, he includes himself in the number. It must be owned, 
that it depends upon the disposition of every communicant, to 
render the previous consecration either salutary or noxious to 
himself : and if any man has a mind to call a worthy reception 
of the elements, a consecration of them to himself, a secondary 
consecration, he may 1 ; for it would not be worth while to hold 
a dispute about words. But strictly speaking, it is not within 
the power or choice of a communicant, either to consecrate or to 
desecrate the symbols, to make the sacrament a common meal, or 
otherwise : it is a religious and sacred meal even to the most un- 
worthy ; and that is the reason why such are liable to the judg- 
ment of God for abusing it : for if it were really a common meal 
to them, it would do them no more hurt, than any other ordinary 
entertainment. Holy things are fit for holy persons, and will 
turn to their nutriment and increase : but to the unholy and 
profane, if they presume to come near, the sanctified instruments 
do as certainly turn to their detriment and condemnation. 
There are proofs of this, in great abundance, quite through the 
Old Testament, and I need not point out to the reader what he 
may everywhere find. 

h Evx<xpiffT'{]ffavTOS Se -rov irpoearw- hominem, non enim indiget sacrificio 

TOS, Kal firevtpriHTia'avTos iravrbs TOV Deus : sed conscientia ejus qui offert, 

Xaov, ot ica\ov/j,evoi trap' ri/j.7i> SIO.KOVOL sanctificat sacrificium, pura existens,' 

$L$6a(nv fK<i(TT(f T<av irap6vT(oi> fj.fra- &c. Iren. lib. iv. c. 18. p. 250. 
\apf?v airb TOV evxapiffTydfi/Tos &p-rov, N. B. Here, sanctifying means 

Kal otvov, Kal liSaror. Justin Mart, rendering salutary : not that that 

p. 96. See Archbishop Potter on alone does it, but it is a condition 

Church Government, p. 262, &c. sine qua non. 

1 ' Igitur non sacrificia sanctificant 

CH. v. the Bread and Wine. 79 

One thing more I may note here in passing, for the preventing 
cavils or mistakes. When we speak of human benedictions, and 
their efficacy, we mean not that they have any real virtue or 
efficacy in themselves, or under any consideration but as founded 
in Divine promise or contract, and as coming from God by man. 
If the prayer of faith saved the sick k , it was not properly the 
human prayer that did it, but God did it by or upon such prayer, 
pursuant to his promise. In like manner, whatever consecration, 
or benediction, or sanctification is imparted in the Sacrament to 
things or persons, it is all God's doing ; and the ground of all 
stands in the Divine warrant authorizing men to administer the 
holy Communion, in the Divine word intimating the effect of it, 
and in the Divine promise and covenant, tacit or express 1 , to 
send his blessing along with it. 

3. The third and most material article of inquiry is, what the 
consecration of the elements really amounts to, or what the effect 
of it is? To which we answer, thus much at least is certain, that 
the bread and wine being 'sanctified by the word of God and 
prayer m ,' (according to the Apostle's general rule, applicable 
in an eminent manner to this particular case,) do thereby con- 
tract a relative holiness, or sanctification, in some degree or other. 
What the degree is, is nowhere precisely determined ; but the 
measures of it may be competently taken from the ends and uses 
of the service, from the near relation it bears to our Lord's 
Person, (a Person of infinite dignity,) and from the judgments 
denounced against irreverent offenders, and perhaps from some 
other considerations to be mentioned as we go along. 

For the clearer conception of this matter, we may take a brief 
survey of what relative holiness meant under the Old Testament, 

k James v. 15. ' is it not the communion,' &c., tan- 

1 I say. tacit or express : because tarnount to a Divine promise of 

our Lord's declaring, and St. Paul's everything we contend for ? But 

declaring what is done in the Eucha- this is not the place to explain that 

rist, do amount to a tacit promise whole matter : thus much is evident, 

of what shall be done always, that what the word of prayer did 

Wherefore the Socinians do but once make the sacramental bread 

trifle with us, when they call for and wine to be, that it will always 

an express promise. Are not the make it. 

words, ' this is my,' &c., and m I Tim. iv. 5. 

80 The Consecration of CH. v. 

and of the various degrees of it. I shall say nothing of the 
relative holiness of persons, but of what belonged to inanimate 
things, which is most to our present purpose. The court of the 
temple was holy n , the temple itself more holy, and the sanctuary, 
or holy of holies, was still more so : but the ark of God, laid up 
in the sanctuary, appears to have been yet holier than all. The 
holiness of the ark was so great, and so tremendous, that many 
were struck dead at once, only for presuming to look into it with 
eyes impure P: and Uzzah but for touching it (though with a 
pious intent to preserve it from falling) was instantly smitten of 
God, and died upon the spot<L Whatever God is once pleased 
to sanctify by his more peculiar presence, or to claim a more 
special property in, or to separate to sacred uses, that is relatively 
holy, as having a nearer relation to God ; and it must of course 
be treated with a reverence and awe suitable. Be the thing what 
it will, be it otherwise ever so mean and contemptible in itself, 
yet as soon as God gives it a sacred relation, and, as it were, 
seals it with his own signet, it must then be looked upon with 
an eye of reverence, and treated with an awful respect, for fear 
of trespassing against the Divine majesty, in making that com- 
mon which God has sanctified. 

T.his notion of relative holiness is a very easy and intelligible 
notion : or if it wanted any further illustration, might be illus- 
trated from familiar examples in a lower kind, of relative 
sacredness accruing to inanimate things by the relation they bear 
to earthly majesty. The thrones, or sceptres, or crowns, or 
presence-rooms of princes are, in this lower sense, relatively 
sacred : and an offence may be committed against the majesty of 
the sovereign, by an irreverence offered to what so peculiarly 
belong to him. If any one should ask, what is conveyed to the 
respective things to make them holy or sacred 1 we might ask, 
in our turn, what was conveyed to the ground- which Moses once 
stood upon, to make it holy ground 1 "? or what was conveyed to 

n I Kings viii. 64. P I Sam. vi. 19. 

The Rabbins reckon up ten i 2 Sain. vi. 7. i Chron. xiii. 9, 

degrees of such relative holiness. 10. 

Vid. Deylingius, Observat. Mis- r Exod. iii. 5. 
cellan. p. 546. 

CH. v. the Bread and Wine. 81 

the gold which the temple was said to sanctify 8 , or what to the 
gift when the altar sanctified it* 1 But to answer more directly, 
as to things common becoming holy or sacred, I say, a holy or 
sacred relation is conveyed to them by their appropriation or 
use ; and that suffices. The things are in themselves just what 
they before were u : but now they are considered by reasonable 
creatures as coming under new and sacred relations, which have 
their moral effect ; insomuch that now the honour of the Divine 
majesty in one case, or of royal in the other case, becomes deeply 
interested in them. 

Let us next apply these general principles to the particular 
instance of relative holiness supposed to be conveyed to the 
symbols of bread and wine by their consecration. They are now 
no more common bread and wine, (at least not during this their 
sacred application,) but the communicants are to consider the 
relation which they bear, and the uses which they serve to. I do 
not here say what, because I have no mind to anticipate what 
more properly belongs to another head, or to a distinct chapter 
hereafter : but in the general I observe, that they contract a 
relative holiness v by their consecration, and that is the effect. 
Hence it is, that some kinds of irreverence towards these sacred 
symbols amount to being 'guilty of the body and blood of the 
Lord x ,' the Lord of glory ; and hence also it was that many 
of the Corinthians, in the apostolical age, were punished as 
severely for offering contempt to this holy solemnity, as others 
formerly were for their irreverence towards, the ark of God : 
that is to say, they were smitten of God with diseases and 
death y. 

8 Matt, xxiii. 17. of Nature, ch. i. concerning moral 

* Matt, xxiii. 19. entities. 

u 'When certain things are said v The ancients therefore frequently 

to be holy or sacred, no moral gave the title of holy, holy of the 

quality of holiness inheres in the Lord, or even holy of holies, and 

things, only an obligation is laid the like, to the sacred elements, 

upon men, to treat them in such Testimonies are collected by 8uicer, 

a particular manner : and when that torn. i. pp. 56, 62. Albertin. pp. 

obligation ceases, they are supposed 345, 346, 376. Grabe, Spicil. torn, 

to fall again into promiscuous and i. p. 343. 
ordinary use.' Puffendorf, Law * I Cor. xi. 27. y I Cor. xi. 30. 


82 The Consecration of CHAP. 

Enough hath been said for the explaining the general nature 
or notion of relative holiness : or if the reader desires more, he 
may consult Mr. Mede, who professedly considers the subject 
more at large z . Such a relative holiness does undoubtedly belong 
to the elements once consecrated. The ancient Fathers are still 
more particular in expounding the sacerdotal consecration, and 
the Divine sanctification consequent thereupon. Their several 
sentiments have been carefully .collected, and useful remarks 
added, by the learned Pfaffius a . It may be proper here to give 
some brief account of their way of explaining this matter, and 
to consider what judgment it may be reasonable to make of it. 
Mr. Aubertine has judiciously reduced their sentiments of conse- 
cration to three heads, as follows b : i. The power of Christ and 
the Holy Spirit, as the principal, or properly efficient cause. 
2. Prayers, thanksgivings, benedictions, as the conditional cause, 
or instrumental. 3. The words of our Lord, ' This is my body, 
this is my blood,' as declarative of what then was, promissory 
of what should be always. I shall throw in a few remarks upon 
the several heads in their order. 

i. As to the power of Christ and the Holy Spirit, (in con- 
junction with God the Father,) I suppose, the ancients might 
infer their joint operations in the Sacraments, partly from the 
general doctrine of Scripture relating to their joint concurrence 
in promoting man's salvation c , and partly from their being jointly 
honoured or worshipped in sacramental services d ; and partly 
also from what is .particularly taught in Scripture with respect 

1 Mede's Works, pp. 399, &c. and d Baptism in the name of all 

823. Dissertationum Triga. Lond. three. Matt, xxviii. 19. As to the 

A.D. 1653. Eucharist, Justin Martyr is an early 

Pfaffius, Dissert, de Consecra- witness, that the custom was to 

tione veterum Encharistica, p. 355. make mention of all the three Per- 

Compare 1'Arroque, Hist, of the sons in that service. 

Eucharist, part i. ch. 8'. p. 65, &c. "E-Treira irpo<r<pfptTa.i r<v irpof<rr5>Ti 

b Albertin. de Eucharist, lib. i. TWI> ftVA^fiy &pros, Kal TroT-fipiov v5a- 

C. 7. p. 34. ros, Kal Kp-ifiaros- Kal OVTOS \aBwv, 

c Matt, xxviii. 18, 19. John xiv. ali-ov Kal $Aai> rtf irarpl rwv tiXcav, 

16, 26. Rom. v. 5, 6. i Cor. xii. 5icb TOV 6v6fj.aros rot) vtov, Kal TOV 

4, 5> 6. 2 Cor. i. 21, 22; xiii. 14. VlvfVfjLaros TOV aylov, avairtfiirfi. i. 17, 21, 22. 2 Thess. ii. 13, Apol. i. p. 96. 
14. Tit. iii. 4, 5, 6. i Pet. i. 2. 

v. the Bread and Wine. 83 

to our Lord's concern in the Eucharist, or the Holy Spirit's. It 
is observable that the doctrine of the Fathers, with regard to 
consecration, was much the same in relation to the waters of 
Baptism, as in relation to the elements in the Eucharist. They 
supposed a kind of descent of the Holy Ghost, to sanctify the 
waters in one, and the symbols in the other, to the uses intended : 
and they seem to have gone upon this general Scripture prin- 
ciple, (besides particular texts relating to each sacrament,) that 
the Holy Ghost is the immediate fountain of all sanctification. 
I believe they were right in the main thing, only not always 
accurate in expression. Had they said, that the Holy Ghost came 
upon the recipients, in the due use of the sacraments, they had 
spoken with greater exactness ; and perhaps it was all that they 
really meant. They could not be aware of the disputes which 
might arise in after times, nor think themselves obliged to a 
philosophical strictness of expression. It was all one with them 
to say, in a confuse general way, either that the Holy Ghost 
sanctified the ' receivers in the use of the outward symbols,' or 
that he 'sanotified the symbols to their use :' for either ex- 
pression seemed to amount to the same thing ; though in strict- 
ness there is a considerable difference between them. What 
Mr. Hooker very judiciously says, of the real presence of Christ 
in the Sacrament, appears to be equally applicable to the presence 
of the Holy Spirit in the same : 'It is not to be sought for in 
the Sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the Sacrament. . . . 
As for the Sacraments, they really exhibit; but for ought we 
can gather out of that which is written of them, they are not 
really, nor do really contain in themselves, that grace which 
with them, or by them, it pleaseth God to bestow 6 .' Not that 
I conceive there is any absurdity in supposing a peculiar presence 
of the Holy Ghost to inanimate things, any more than in God's 
appearing in a burning bush f : but there is no proof of the fact, 

e Hooker, Eccl. Polity, b. v. pp. sion, lower down, for citing his 
307, 308. Archbishop Cranmer had words. Conf. Sam. Ward, Deter- 
said the same thing before, in his miuat. Theolog. p. 62. 
preface to his book against Gar- f Exod. iii. 2. Acts vii. 30. 
diner : I shall have another occa- 

G 2 

84 The Consecration of CHAP. 

either from direct Scripture, or from that in conjunction with 
the reason of the thing. The relative holiness of the elements, 
or symbols, as explained above, is very intelligible, without this 
other supposition : and as to the rest, it is all more rationally 
accounted for (as we shall see hereafter) by the presence of the 
Holy Spirit with the worthy receivers, in the use of the symbols, 
than by I know not what presence or union with the symbols 
themselves S. 

2. The second article, mentioned by Albertinus, relates to 
prayers, thanksgivings, and benedictions, considered as instru- 
mental in consecration. It has been a question, whether the 
earlier Fathers (those of the three first centuries) allowed of any 
proper prayer, as distinct from thanksgiving, in the Eucharistical 
consecration. I think they did, though the point is scarce worth 
disputing, since they plainly allowed of a sanctification of the 
elements, consequent upon what was done by the officiating 
minister. But we may examine a few authorities, and as briefly 
as possible. 

Justin Martyr, more than once, calls the consecrated elements 
by the name of eucharistized food h , which looks as if he thought 
that the thanksgiving was the consecration : but yet he com- 
monly makes mention both of prayers and thanksgiving *, where 
he speaks of the Eucharistical service ; from whence it appears 
probable, or certain rather, that consecration, at that time, was 
performed by both. 

Irenaeus k speaks of the bread as receiving the invocation of 
God, and thereby becoming more than common bread. Some 
would interpret it of prayer for the descent of the Holy Ghost l ; 
but, as I apprehend, without sufficient authority. Irenaeus 
might mean no more than calling upon God, in any kind of 

* Vid. Vossius de Sacrament. Vi ux a P" rn/ai '- Ii>id. p. 96. Evxas (5<uoi- 
et Efficacia A.D. 1648. torn. vi. p. ws ol evx<*ptffrla.s. p. 08. Ei/xa.1 /cal 
252. de Bapt. Diss. v. p. 174. Har- ei>xap'<rriai. Dial. p. 387. 

mon. Evangel. 233. A.D. 1656. k 'O etirb yrjs &pros irpoff\afj.&av6- 

* Evxa-piffTTiOfvTos &prov. . . . eu^a- fifvos r^v fKK\ri<nv rov @eov, ovKtn 
punriBti-jav rpo<fyfiv. Apol. i. p. Koifbs &pros forlv, a\\' ei/xapitTTia. 
96. Iren. lib. ix. c. 18. p. 2 = 1. 

' A.Ayci> ff>x^ s Ka ^ ttjftfurrUa. ' Pfaffius in Praefat. ad Fragm. 

Apol. i. p. 19. T&s euxJ MM TV Anecdota et in Lib. p. 96. 

v. the Bread and Wine. 85 

prayer or thanksgiving, or in such as Justin Martyr before him 
had referred to. Irenaeus, in the same chapter, twice speaks of 
thanksgiving m , as used before or at the consecration : but no- 
thing can be certainly inferred from thence, as to his excluding 
prayer, and resolving the consecration into bare thanksgiving. 

Origen has expressed this whole matter with as much judg- 
ment and exactness, as one shall anywhere meet with among 
the ancient Fathers. He had been considering our Lord's 
words, ' Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man n ;' 
upon which he immediately thought with himself, that by parity 
of reason, it might as justly be said, that what goes into the 
mouth cannot sanctify a man. And yet here he was aware, that 
according to the vulgar way of conceiving or speaking, the sa- 
cramental elements of bread and wine in the Eucharist were 
supposed to sanctify the receiver, having themselves been sanc- 
tified before in their consecration. This was true in some sense, 
and according to a popular way of speaking ; and therefore could 
not be denied by Origen, without wary and proper distinctions. 
He allows, in the first place, that the elements were really sanc- 
tified ; namely, by the word of God and prayer o : but he denies 
that what is so sanctified, sanctifies any person by its own proper 
virtue P, or considered according to its matter, which goes in at 
the mouth, and is cast off in the draught ; admitting, however, 
that the prayer and word (that is, God by them) do enlighten the 
mind and sanctify the heart (for that is his meaning) of the 
worthy receiver. So he resolves the virtue of the Sacrament into 
the sacerdotal consecration, previous to the worthy reception : 
and he reckons prayer (strictly so called) as part of the conse- 
cration. The sum is, that the sanctification, properly speaking, 

m ' Offerens ei cum gratiarum ac- icbi>, et's atyeSpuva e/c/SaAAerat, Kara Sf 

tione....Panem in quo gratiae actae rrjv eiriyevofj.fvriv avry fvx^v, Kara 

sint.' Iren. p. 251. rfyv ava\oyiav rrjs Trlffras, &<t>f\t/jiot> 

n Matt. xv. II. yii/erai, Kal rijs rov vov atnov $iaf}\- 

' Ayia(r6fvros \6y<f eov Kal tvrtv- \j/fcas, oputvros firl rb w<t>t\ovv. Kal oi>x 

|ei aprov. . . . rb aytatyufvov fipia/j.a Sia r) v\rf rov aprov, a\\' 6 fir' avr flpr/- 

\6yov Qfov Kal fi>Tfvtus. Orig. in fi4vos \6yos e<rrlv & w<t>t\wv rbf /ur; 

Matt. p. 254. ava^ius rov Kvptov fcrBiovra avrdv. p. 

P Ov Tta ifiiip \6yca aytdfi rbv xp<i>- 254. 
/j-fvov. p. 253. Kar' avrb (*.ei> rb v\i- 

86 The Consecration of ( CHAP. 

goes to the person fitly disposed, and is the gift of God, not the 
work of the outward elements, though sanctified in a certain 
sense, as having been consecrated to holy uses. Thus by carefully 
distinguishing upon the case, he removed the difficulty arising 
from a common and popular way of expressing it. Nevertheless, 
after this% in his latest and most correct work, he did not 
scruple to make use of the same popular kind of expression, 
observing that the eucharistical bread, by prayer and thanks- 
giving, was made a sort of holy, or sanctified body, sanctifying 
the worthy receivers r . Where we may note, that lie again takes 
in both prayer and thanksgiving, to make the consecration. And 
we may observe another thing, by the way, worth the noting, 
that by body there, he does not understand our Lord's natural 
body, but the sanctified bread, which he elsewhere calls the sym- 
bolical and typical body s ; that is to say, representative body, as 
distinguished from the real body, or true food of the soul, which 
none but the holy partake of, and all that do so are happy. 
Origen's doctrine therefore, with respect to this article, lies in 
these particulars : i. That the bread and wine, before consecra- 
tion, are common food. 2. That after consecration by prayer 
and thanksgiving, they become holy, typical, symbolical food, 
representative of true food. 3. That unworthy receivers eat of 
the symbolical food only, without the true. 4. That worthy 
receivers, upon eating the symbolical food, are enlightened and 
sanctified from above, and consequently do partake of the true 
spiritual food, in the same act. I shall proceed no lower with 
the Fathers, under this article, having said as much as I conceive 
sufficient for illustrating Mr. Aubertine's second particular. 
3. The third will still want some explication : where we are 

i The Homilies on St. Matthew n, Kal ayidov TOVS per' vyiovs vpoOf- 

are supposed to have been written crecos avrip ^p<afj.evovs. Origen. contr. 

in the year of our Lord 244, and Cels. lib. viii. p. 766. edit. Bened. 

his book against Celsus A.D. 249. s Tavra / trtpl TOV TVTTIKOV Kal 

Origen died in 253. eru^u/SoAi/coD erco/uaros, TroAAa S 1 tiif Kal 

r 'U/j.f7s tie r TOV iravrbs Srj/ui- irtpi UVTOV \fyono TOV \6yov, bs yt- 

ovpyy euxapiffTovvTfs, Kal TOVS /J.(T' yore <rop|, Kal a\r]9tv^ /8pw<m, ^v Tiva 

evxaptffTias Kal fi>xrjs TTJJ eirl rots 6 <f>aycav irdvTtas tfcreTai fls T^V aliai/a, 

<5o0e?<n>ovs aprovs tffOiof^ei'. ovSevbs Svva/j.fvov <f>av\ov tcrQieiv av- 

ff>[jia yevoftfvovs Sia TTJC fvxfyv aytov r^v. Origen. in Matt. p. 254. 

v. the Bread and Wine. 87 

to consider what effect the words of our Lord, ' This is my body,' 
are conceived now to have in the Eucharistical consecration. It 
is not meant (as the Romanists are pleased to interpret) that the 
pronouncing those words makes the consecration : but the words 
then spoken by our blessed Lord are conceived to operate now 
as virtually carrying in them a rule, or a promise, for all succeed- 
ing ages of the Church, that what was then done when our Lord 
himself administered, or consecrated, will be always done in the 
celebration of the Eucharist, pursuant to that original. If the 
elements were then sanctified or consecrated into representative 
symbols of Christ's body and blood, and if the worthy receivers 
were then understood to partake of the true spiritual food upon 
receiving the symbolical; and if all this was then implied in the 
words, ' This is my body,' &c., so it is now. What the Sacrament 
then was, in meaning, virtue, and effect, the same it is also at this 
day. Such was the way of reasoning which some of the Fathers 
made use of ; and it appears to have been perfectly right and 
just. It was with this view, or under this light, that they took 
upon them to say, that our Lord's words then spoken, were to 
have their effect in every consecration after ; namely, as being 
directly declaratory of what then was, and virtually promissory 
of what should be in like case for all times to come. The same 
Lord is our High Priest in heaven, recommending and enforcing 
our prayers there, and still constantly ratifying what he once said, 
' This is my body,' &c. For, like as the words once spoken, 
' Increase and multiply, and replenish the earth,' have their effect 
at this day, and in all ages of the world ; so the words of our 
Lord, ' This is my body,' though spoken but once by him, stand 
in full force and virtue, and will ever do so, in all ages of 
the Christian Church. This is the sum of St. Chrysostom's rea- 
soning upon this head ; which it may suffice barely to refer to* : 
Mr. Pfaffius has collected from him what was most material, 
illustrating all with proper remarks ". The use I would further 

* Chrysost. Homil. i. de Prodi- Bingham, b. xiv. ch. 3. sect. II. Al- 

tione Judae, torn. ii. p. 384. ed. bertin. lib. i. c. 7. p. 33 ; and Covel's 

Bened. Account of the Greek Church, pp. 47, 

" Pfaffius de Consecratione Vet. 48, 63, &c. 
Eucbaristica, p. 389, &c. Compare 

88 The Consecration of CHAP. 

make of the notion is, to endeavour from hence to explain some 
short and obscure hints of the elder Fathers. For example, 
Justin Martyr speaks of the elements being eucharistized or 
blessed by the prayer of the word that came from him x [God]. 
Why might not he mean the very same thing that Chrysostom 
does, namely, that Christ, our High Priest above, now ratines 
what he once said on earth, when he blessed the elements with 
his consecration prayers, in the institution of the Eucharist ? It 
is he that now sanctifies the symbols, as he then did, and, as it 
were, presides over our Eucharistical services, making the bread 
to become holy, which before was common, and giving the true 
food to as many as are qualified to receive it, along with the 
symbolical ; that is, giving himself to dwell in us, as we also in 
him. There is another the like obscure hint in Irenaeus, which 
may probably be best interpreted after the same way. He sup- 
poses the elements to become Christ's body by receiving the 
word Y. He throws two considerations into one, and does not 
distinguish so accurately as Origen afterwards did, between the 
symbolical food and the true food. In strictness, the elements 
first become sanctified (in such a sense as inanimate things may) 
by consecration pursuant to our Lord's institution, and which our 
Lord still ratifies ; and thus they are made the representative 
body of Christ : but they are at the same time, to worthy 
receivers, made the means of their spiritual union with Christ 
himself ; which" Irenaeus points at in what he says of the bread's 
receiving the Logos, but should rather have said it of the com- 
municants themselves, as receiving the spiritual presence of 
Christ, in the worthy use of the sacred symbols. But this 
matter must come over again, and be distinctly considered 
at large. All I had to do here was, to fix the true notion of 
consecration in as clear and distinct a manner as I could. The 
sum is, that the consecration of the elements makes them holy 
symbols, relatively holy, on account of their relation to what they 

ijs \6yov rov Trap av- rbv koyov rov 0eoG, Kal yiverat rj 

rov tvxapio~rr]0e'iffav Tpo<pijv. Justin fi>xapiffrla erta/jia Xpiorou, &c. Iren. 

Mart. p. 96. Cp. Albertin. p. 31. lib. v. c. 2. p. 294. TrpoaXa^avtiv 

> 'Oirort ovv Kal rb Kcfcpa/ucVoi/ iro- rov \6yoi> rov eov, fvxapi<rria ylvt- 

rifpiov, Kal d ytyovias Upros eTi8/x Ta ' Tal - Ibid. 

vi. the Bread and Wine. 89 

represent, or point to, by Divine institution : and it is God that 
gives them this holiness by the ministry of the word. The 
sanctification of the communicants (which is God's work also) is 
of distinct consideration from the former, though they are often 
confounded : and to this part belongs what has been improperly 
called making the symbols become our Lord's body ; and which 
really means making them his body to us ; or more plainly still, 
making us partakers of our Lord's broken body and blood shed 
at the same time that we receive the holy symbols ; which we 
are to explain in the sequel. I shall only remark further here, 
what naturally follows from all going before, that the consecra- 
tion, or sanctification of the elements in this service, is absolute 
and universal for the time being ; and therefore all that commu- 
nicate unworthily are chargeable with profaning things holy : 
but the sauctification of persons is hypothetical and particular, 
depending upon the dispositions which the communicants bring 
with them to the Lord's table. 

Having done with the consecration of the elements, I should 
now proceed to the distribution and manducation. But as there 
is a sacramental feeding and a spiritual feeding; and as the 
spiritual is the nobler of the two, and of chief concern, and what 
the other principally or solely looks to, I conceive it will be 
proper to treat of this first : and because the sixth chapter of 
St. John contains the doctrine of spiritual feeding, as delivered 
by our Lord himself, a twelvemonth, or more, before he insti- 
tuted the Sacrament of the Eucharist, I shall make that the 
subject of the next chapter. 


Of Spiritual Eating and Drinking, as taught in John vi. 

THE discourse which our Lord had at Capernaum, about the 
eating his flesh and drinking his blood, is very remarkable, 
and deserves our closest attention. His strong way of ex- 
pressing himself, and his emphatical repeating the same thing, 
in the same or in different phrases, are alone sufficient to 
persuade us, that some very important mystery, some very 

90 Spiritual Eating and Drinking, CHAP. 

significant lesson of instruction is contained in what he said 
in that chapter, from verse the 27th to verse the 63rd 

For the right understanding of that discourse, we must take 
our marks from some of the critical parts of it, and from other 
explanatory places of Scripture. From verse the 63rd, as well 
as from the nature of the thing, we may learn, that the discourse 
is mostly mystical, and ought to be spiritually, not literally 
understood 2 . 'It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh pro- 
fiteth nothing : the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, 
and they are life.' I am aware that this text has been variously 
interpreted 8 , and that it is not very easy to ascertain the con- 
struction, so as not to leave room even for reasonable doubt. I 
choose that interpretation which appears most natural, and which 
has good countenance from antiquity, and many judicious inter- 
preters b ; but the reason of the thing is sufficient to satisfy us, 
that a great part of this discourse of our Lord's cannot be 
literally interpreted, but must admit of some figurative or 
mystical construction. 

A surer mark for interpreting our Lord's meaning in this 
chapter is the universality of the expressions which he made use 
of, both in the affirmative and negative way. ' If any man eat 
of this bread he shall live for ever c .' ' Whoso eateth my flesh 
and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life d ,' ' dwelleth in me, and 
I in him e .' So far in the affirmative or positive way : the pro- 
positions are universal affirmatives, as the schools speak. The 
like may be observed in the negative way: 'Except ye eat the 
flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in 
you f .' The sum is : all that feed upon what is here mentioned 
have life ; and all that do not feed thereupon have no life. 
Hence arises an argument against interpreting the words of 
sacramental feeding in the Eucharist. For it is not true that 

* Orig. in Levit. Horn. vii. p. nus in Psalm, xcviii. 

235. Eusebius de Eccl. Theol. 1. iii. a Vid. Albertin. de Eucharist, p. 

c. 12. Cyrill. Hierosol. Catech. xvi. 243, &c. 

p. 251. Mystag. iv. 321. Chrysos- b Vid. Albertin. p. 244. 

torn, in loc. Athanasius ad Scrap. c John vi. 51. d John vi. 54. 

Ep. iv. p. 710. ed. Bened. Augusti- e John vi. 56. f John vi. 53. 

vi. according to John vi. 91 

all who receive the Communion have life, unless we put in the 
restriction of ' worthy,' and ' so far.' Much less can it be true, 
that all who never have, or never shall receive, have not life ; 
unless we make several more restrictions, confining the proposi- 
tion to persons living since the time of the institution, and 
persons capable, and not destitute of opportunity : making ex- 
ceptions for good men of old, and for infants, and for many who 
have been or may be invincibly ignorant, or might never have it 
in their power to receive the Communion, or to know anything 
of it. Now an interpretation which must be clogged with a 
multitude of restrictions to make it bear, if at all, is such as 
one would not choose (other circumstances being equal) in pre- 
ference to what is clogged with fewer, or with none ?. 

Should we interpret the words, of faith in Christ, there must 
be restrictions in that case also ; viz. to those who have heard 
of Christ, and who do not only believe in him, but live according 
to his laws. And exceptions must be made for many good men 
of old, who either knew nothing of Christ, or very obscurely; as 
likewise for infants and idiots ; and perhaps also for many who 
are in utter darkness without any fault of theirs : so that 
this construction comes not fully up to the universality of the 
expressions made use of by our Lord. 

But if neither of these can answer in that respect, is there 
any other construction that will 1 or what is it ? Yes, there 
is one which will completely answer in point of universality, 
and it is this : all that shall finally share in the death, passion 
and atonement of Christ, are safe; and all that have not a 
part therein are lost h . All that are saved owe their salvation 
to the salutary passion of Christ : and their partaking thereof 
(which is feeding upon his flesh and blood) is their life. On 
the other hand, as many as are excluded from sharing therein, 

s Cp. Albertin. de Eucharist, pp. passion! Dominicae communican- 

234, 235. dum, et suaviter atque utiliter re- 

h ' Nisi manducaveritis, inquit, condendurn in memoria, quod pro 

carnem Filii hominis, et sanguinem nobis caro ejus crucifixa et vulne- 

biberitis, non habebitis vitam in vo- rata sit.' Augustin. de Doctriri. 

bis. Facinus, vel flagitium videtur Christian, lib. iii. cap. 16. p. 52. 

jubere : figura est ergo, praecipiens torn. iii. Bened. 

92 Spiritual Eating and Drinking, CHAP. 

and therefore feed not upon the atonement, have no life in 
them. Those who are blessed with capacity and opportuni- 
ties, must have faith, must have sacraments, must be in cove- 
nant, must receive and obey the Gospel, in order to have the 
expiation of the death of Christ applied to them : but our Lord's 
general doctrine in this chapter seems to abstract from all 
particularities, and to resolve into this ; that whether with 
faith or without, whether in the sacraments or out of the 
sacraments, whether before Christ or since, whether in cove- 
nant or out of covenant, whether here or hereafter, no man 
ever was, is, or will be accepted, but in and through the 
grand propitiation made by the blood of Christ. This I take 
to be the main doctrine taught by our Lord in that chapter, 
which he delivers so earnestly, and inculcates so strongly, for 
the glory of the Divine justice, holiness, goodness, philanthropy ; 
and for humbling the pride of sinners, apt to conceive highly 
of their own worth ; as also for the convincing all men, 
to whom the Gospel should be propounded, of the absolute 
necessity of closing in with it, and living up to it. That 
general doctrine of salvation by Christ alone, by Christ cruci- 
fied, is the great and important doctrine, the burden of both 
Testaments ; signified in all the sacrifices and services of the 
old law, and fully declared in every page almost of the New 
Testament. What doctrine more likely to have been intended 
in John vi., if the words will bear it; or if, over and 
above, the universality of the expressions appears to require 
it? Eating and drinking, by a very easy, common figure, 
mean receiving : and what is the thing to be received ] 
Christ himself in his whole person : ' I am the bread of 
life k .' ' He that eateth me, even he shall live by me l .' But 
more particularly he is to be considered as giving his body 
to be broken, and as shedding his blood for making an atone- 
ment : and so the fruits of his death are what we are to 
receive as our spiritual food : his ' flesh is meat indeed,' and 

1 So eating and drinking damnation (i Cor. xi. 29) is receiving dam- 

k John vi. 35, 48, 51. ' John vi. 57. 

vi. according to John vi. 93 

his 'blood is drink indeed 01 .' His passion is our redemption, 
and by his death we live. This meat is administered to us by 
the hand of God ; while by the hand of faith, ordinarily, we take 
it, and in the use of the sacraments n . But God may extraordi- 
narily administer the same meat, that is, may apply the same 
benefits of Christ's death, and virtue of his atonement, to sub- 
jects capable, without any act of theirs ; as to infants, idiots, 
&c., who are merely passive in receiving it, but at the same time 
offer no obstacle to it. 

The xxviiith Article of our Church says, ' that the means 
whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the supper 
is faith.' That sacrament is supposed to be given to none but 
adults ; and to them, not only faith in general, but a true and 
right faith, and the same working by love, is indispensably re- 
quisite, as an ordinary mean . All which is consonant to what 
I have here asserted, and makes no alteration as to the exposition 
of John vi., which speaks not principally of what is required in 
adult Christians, or of what is requisite to a worthy reception 
of the holy Communion, but of what is absolutely necessary at 
all times, and to all persons, and in all circumstances, to a happy 
resurrection; namely, an interest in, or a participation of, the 
atonement made by Christ upon the cross. He that is taken in, 
as a sharer in it, is saved : he that is excluded from it, is lost. 

Some learned writers have observed that our Lord in that 
chapter attributes much to a man's believing in him, or coming 
to him, as the means to everlasting life, have conceived that 
faith, or doctrine, is what he precisely meant by the bread of 
life, and that believing in Christ is the same with the eating 
and drinking there spoken of. But the thing to be received is 
very distinct from the hand receiving ; therefore faith is not the 

m John vi. 55. menta et fides non sunt sibi invicem 

n ' Sacramenta sunt media offeren- opponenda.' Gerhard. Loc. Comm. 

tia et exhibentia ex parte Dei : fides par. iv. p. 309. 

medium recipiens et apprehendens T Hs ovSevl &\\y fj-fraff-^ftv t6v 

ex pai'te nostra : quemadmodum eo-rij/, t) rf iriffrtvovri a\ri6rj flvou TCI 

igitur manus donans, et manus re- StSiSayfieva. v<j> iipuir.. ..ical oifows 

cipiens non sunt opposita sed relata, ftioi-vri wsoXpiar^-n-apeSuKfr. Justin 

et subordinata, ita quoque Sacra- Mart. Apol. i. p. 96. 

94 Spiritual Eating and Drinking, CHAP. 

meat, but the mean. Belief in Christ is the condition required, 
the duty commanded : but the bread of life is the reward conse- 
quent. Believing is not eating or drinking the fruits of Christ's 
passion, but is preparatory to it, as the means to the end P. In 
short, faith, ordinarily, is the qualification, or one qualification ; 
but the body and blood is the gift itself, and the real inheritance. 
The doctrine of Christ, lodged in the soul, is what gives the soul 
its proper temperature and fitness to receive the heavenly food : 
but the heavenly food is Christ himself, as once crucified, who 
has since been glorified. See this argument very clearly and 
excellently made out at large by a late learned writer Q. It may 
be true, that eating and drinking wisdom is the same with 
receiving wisdom : and it is no less true, that eating and drink- 
ing flesh and blood is receiving flesh and blood; for eating 
means receiving. But where does flesh or blood stand for 
wisdom or for doctrine ? What rules of symbolical language are 
there that require it, or can ever admit of it 1 There lies the 
stress of the whole thing. Flesh, in symbolical language, may 
signify riches, goods, possessions r : and blood may signify life : 
but Scripture never uses either as a symbol of doctrine. To 
conclude then, eating wisdom is receiving wisdom ; but eating 
Christ's flesh and blood is receiving life and happiness through 
his blood, and, in one word, receiving him ; and that not 
merely as the object of our faith, but as the fountain of 
our salvation, and our sovereign good, by means of his death 
and passion. 

To confirm what has been said, let us take in a noted text of 
the Epistle to the Hebrews, which appears decisive in this case. 
' We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which 

* 'Credere in Christum, et edere que unum cum ipso.. ..Itaque, no- 

Christum, vel carnem ejus, inter se tione definitioneque aliud est spiri- 

tanquam prius et posterius differunt ; tualis manducatio quam credere in 

sicuti ad Christum venire et Chris- Christum.' Lamb. Danaeus ApoJog. 

turn bibere. Praecedit enim acces- pro Helvet. Eccles. p. 23. 
sus et apprehensio, quara sequitur 1 Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, 

potio, et manducatio : ergo fide p. 393, &c. 

Christum prius recipiinus, ut habitet r See Lancaster's Symbolical Dic- 

ipse in nobis, fiamusque ipsius vivae tionary, prefixed to his Abridgment 

carnis et sanguinis participes, adeo- of Daubuz, p. 45. 

vi. according to John vi. 95 

serve the tabernacle s .' Whether the Apostle here speaks of 
spiritual eating in the sacrament, or out of the sacrament, is not 
now the question : hut that he speaks of spiritual eating cannot 
reasonably be doubted. And what can the eating there mean, 
but the partaking of Christ crucified, participating of the benefits 
of his passion 1 That is the proper Christian eating, such as 
none but Christians have a clear and covenanted right to. The 
Apostle speaks not in that chapter of eating doctrine, but of 
eating sacrifice. The references there made to the Jewish sacri- 
fices plainly shew, that the Apostle there thought not of eating 
the doctrine of the cross, but of eating, that is, partaking of, the 
sacrifice or atonement of the cross '. Therefore let this be 
taken in, as an additional explication of the eating mentioned in 
John vi., so far at least as to shew that it must refer to some 
sacrifice, and not to mere doctrines. 

I am aware that many interpreters of good note among the 
ancients", as well as many learned moderns, have understood 
altar in that text directly of the Lord's table, and the eating, of 
oral manducation : which construction would make the text less 
suitable to my present purpose. But other interpreters v , of 
good note also, have understood the altar there mentioned of 
the altar in heaven, or of the altar of the cross (both which 
resolve at length into one) ; and some have defended that con- 
struction with great appearance of reason. Estius, in particular, 
after Aquinas and others, has very ingenuously and rationally 
maintained it, referring also to John vi. 51, as parallel or similar 
to it, and understanding both of spiritual eating, abstracted from 

8 Heb. xiii. 10 : compare Rev. u Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theo- 

vi. 9. Zornius, Opusc. Sacr. torn, phylact, Primasius, Sedulius, Hay- 

ii. p. 542. mo, Remigius, Anselm. ' Plerique 

* ' Mihi perspicuum videtur esse, tarn veteres quam recentiores signi- 

ararn hie poni pro victima in ara ficari volunt mensam Dominicam.' 

Deo oblata. Sensus verborum hie Estius in loc. 

est, ut puto : Jesu Christi, qui vera v Chrysostom. in Hebr. Horn. xi. 

est pro peccatis hominum victima, p. 807. Cyrill. Alex, de Adorat. lib. 

nemo fieri particeps potest, qui in ix. 310. Compare Lightfoot, Opp. 

ceremoniis et externis ritibus Ju- torn. ii. part. 2. pp. 1259 1264. 

daicis, religionis arcem censet esse Outram de Sacrif. p. 332, &c. Wol- 

positam.' Moshem. ad Cudworth. fius, Cur. Crit. in loc. 
P- 3- 

96 Spiritual Eating and Drinking, CHAP. 

sacramental x . In this construction I acquiesce, as most natural 
and most agreeable to the whole context : neither am I sensible 
of any just objection that can be made to it. The Apostle did 
not mean, that they who served the tabernacle had no right 
to believe in Christ ; that indeed would be harsh : but he 
meant that they who served the tabernacle, not believing in 
Christ, or however still adhering too tenaciously to the legal 
oblations, had no right or title to partake of the sacrifice or atone- 
ment made by Christ. The thought is somewhat similar to 
what the same Apostle has elsewhere signified; namely, that 
they who affected to be justified by the law, forfeited all benefit 
arising from the grace of the Gospel, and Christ could profit 
them nothing Y. 

But for the clearer perception of spiritual feeding, and for the 
preventing confusion of ideas, it will be proper to distinguish 
between what it is primarily, and what secondarily ; or between 
the thing itself, and the effects, fruits, or consequences of it. 
i. Spiritual feeding, in this case, directly and primarily means 
no more than the eating and drinking our Lord's body broken, 
and blood shed ; that is, partaking of the atonement made by his 
death and sufferings : this is the prime thing, the ground and 
basis of all the rest. We must first be reconciled to God by the 
death of his Son, before we can have a just claim or title to any 
thing besides z : therefore the foundation of all our spiritual 
privileges is our having a part in that reconcilement ; which, in 
strictness, is eating and drinking his flesh and blood in St. John's 
phrase, and eating of the altar in St. Paul's. 2. The result, 
fruit, or effect of our thus eating his crucified body is a right to 
be fellow-heirs with his body glorified : for if we are made par- 
takers of his death, we shall be also of his resurrection a . On 
this is founded our mystical union with Christ's glorified body, 

* ' Hue etiam pertinet, quod cor- on the Sacrament, b. vi. chap. 3. p. 

pus Christi, in cruce oblatum, panis 416. 

vocatur, fide manducandus. Ut y Gal. v. 2, 3, 4. 

Joann. vi. Panis, inquit, quern ego z Coloss. i. 20, 21, 22. Ephes. ii. 

dabo, caro mea est, quam ego dabo 13, 16, 

pro mundi vita: scilicet, in cruce.' a Rom. v. 9, 10, n. Phil. iii. 10, 

Estiusinloc. Compare Bp. Moreton n. Eom. vi. 5 8. 

vi. according to John vi. 97 

which neither supposes nor infers any local presence : for all the 
members of Christ, however distant in place, are thus mystically 
united with Christ, and with each other. And it is well known, 
that right or property, in any possession, is altogether independent 
of local presence, and may as easily be conceived without it as 
with it b . 3. Upon such mystical union with the body of Christ 
glorified, and making still part of his whole Person, follows a 
gracious vital presence of his Divine nature abiding in us, and 
dwelling with us c . Upon the same follows the like gracious vital, 
presence, and indwelling of the other two Divine Persons d : and 
hereupon follow all the spiritual graces, wherewith the true 
members of Christ are enriched. 

This orderly ranging of ideas may contribute very much towards 
the clearing our present subject of the many perplexities with 
which it has been embarrassed ; and may further serve to shew 
us, where the ancients or moderns have happened to exceed, 
either in sentiment or expression, and how far they have done so, 
and how they were led into it. The ancients, in their account of 
spiritual feeling, have often passed over the direct and immediate 
feeding upon Christ considered as crucified, and have gone on to 
what is properly the result or consequence of it, namely, to the 
mystical union with the body glorified, and what hangs thereupon* 
There was no fault in so doing, more than what lies in too quick 
a transition, or too confused a blending of ideas. 

I am aware that much dispute has been raised by contending 

b ' Pro tanta conjunctione asse- possit in caelis ease, ac spiritualiter 

renda inter nos et Christum non nobiscum conjungi? Quod idem in 

opus praesentia corporali aut sub- matrimonio usu venire intelligimus, 

stantiali corporis Christi, quam sta- ubi sancta Scriptura praedicat, virum 

tuere multi conantur in Eucharistia. et uxorem unam carnem esse : quod 

Nam ea nil plus vel commodi vel non minus verum fateri coguntur 

utilitatis habebimus quam si Chris- adversarii cum una conjuges habi- 

tuni quoad corpus suo loco sinamus tant, quam si locorum intervallo 

in caelis. Videmus enim Christi- nonnunquam disjungantur.' Pet. 

anos posse esse invicem membra, et Martyr in i Cor. xii. 12, 13, fol. 

quidem conjunctissima, tametsi ali- 178. Cp. Albertin. de Eucharist, 

quis eorum degat in Britannia, alius pp. 230, 231. 

in Gallia, et alius in Hispania. Quod John vi. 56 ; xv. 4. Matt, xviii. 

si de membris ipsis conceditur, cur 20 ; xxviii. ao. 

de capite idem fateri erit absurdum, d John xiv. 16, 17, 23. I Cor. iii. 

ut hac spiritual! conjuuctione simul 16 ; vi. 19. a Cor. vi. 16. 


98 Spiritual Eating and Drinking, CHAP. 

parties about the sense of the ancients with respect to John vi. 
It may be a tedious inquiry to go through : for there is no doing 
it to the satisfaction of considering men, without taking every 
Father, one by one, and re-examining his sentiments, as they lie 
scattered in several places of his writings, and that with some 
care and accuracy. It may be of some use to go over that 
matter again, after many others, if the reader can but bear with 
a little prolixity, which will be here unavoidable. There have 
been two extremes in the accounts given of the Fathers, and both 
of them owing, as I conceive, to a neglect of proper distinctions. 
They who judge that the Fathers in general, or almost uni- 
versally, do interpret John vi. of the Eucharist, appear not to 
distinguish between interpreting and applying : itwas right to 
apply the general doctrine of John vi. to the particular case of 
the Eucharist, considered as worthily received ; because the 
spiritual feeding there mentioned is the thing signified in the 
Eucharist, yea and performed likewise. After we have suffi- 
ciently proved, from other Scriptures, that in and by the Eucha- 
rist, ordinarily, such spiritual food is conveyed, it is then right to 
apply all that our Lord, by St. John, says in the general, to that 
particular case : and this indeed the Fathers commonly did. But 
such application does not amount to interpreting that chapter of 
the Eucharist. For example ; the words, ' except ye eat the 
flesh of Christ, &c., you have no life in you,' do not mean 
directly, that you have no life without the Eucharist, but that you 
have no life without participating of our Lord's passion : never- 
theless, since the Eucharist is one way of participating of the 
passion, and a very considerable one, it was very pertinent and 
proper to urge the doctrine of that chapter, both for the clearer 
understanding the beneficial nature of the Eucharist, and for the 
exciting Christians to a frequent and devout reception of it. 
Such was the use which some early Fathers made of John vL (as 
our Church also does at this day, and that very justly,) though 
I will not say that some of the later Fathers did not extend it 
further : as we shall see in due place. 

As to those who, in another extreme, charge the Fathers in 
general as interpreting John vi. of digesting doctrines only, 

vi. according to JoJm vi. 99 

they are more widely mistaken than the former, for want of con- 
sidering the tropological way of commenting then in use : which 
Avas not properly interpreting, nor so intended 6 , but was the more 
frequently made use of in this subject, when there was a mixed 
audience ; because it was a rule not to divulge their mysteries 
before incompetent hearers, before the uninitiated, that is, the 
unbaptized. But let us now take the Fathers in their order, and 
consider their real sentiments, so far as we can see into them, 
with respect to John vi. 

Ignatius never formally cites John vi., but he has been thought 
to favour the sacramental interpretation, because he believed the 
Eucharist to be a pledge or means of an happy resurrection : for 
it is suggested that he could learn that doctrine only from 
John vi. f But this appears to be pushing a point too far, and 
reasoning inconsequently. Ignatius might very easily have main- 
tained his point, from the very words of the institution, to as 
many as knew anything of symbolical language : for what can 
any one infer less from the being symbolically fed with Christ's 
body crucified, but that it gives a title to an inheritance with the 
body glorified? Or, if the same Ignatius interpreted i Cor. x. 16 
(as he seems to have done) of a mystical union with the body of 
Christ , then he had Scripture ground sufficient, without John vi., 
for making the Eucharist a pledge or means of an happy resur- 
rection. John vi. may be of excellent use to us for explain- 
ing the beneficial nature of the Eucharist, spiritual manducation 
being presupposed as the thing signified in that Sacrament : but 
it will not be prudent to lessen the real force of other consider- 
able texts, only for the sake of resting all upon John vi., which 
at length cannot be proved to belong directly or primarily to 
the Eucharist. 

It seems that Ignatius had John vi. in his eye, or some 

e See my Importance of the Doc- & *Ev iroTJipiov, (Is ev<a<rtv rov a'[^.a- 

trine of the Trinity asserted, vol. iii. TOS avrov. Ignat. ad Philad. sect, 

pp. 649, 692, &c. and Preface to iv. p. 27. Compare Chrysostom on 

Sciipture Vindicated, vol. iv. p. I Cor. x. 16, who interprets com- 

160. munion there mentioned by eVoxns. 

f See Johnson's Unbloody Sacri- avrtf 5jct rov &prov rovrov tvw/j.e6a. 
fice, part. i. pp. 387, 388. 

H 2 

ioo Spiritual Eating and Drinking, CHAP. 

phrases of it, in a very noted passage, where he had no thought 
of the Eucharist, but of eating the bread of life, after a more 
excellent way, in a state of glory. The passage is this : ' I am 
alive at this writing, but my desire is to die. My love is cru- 
cified, and I have no secular fire left : but there is in me living 
water, speaking to me within, and saying, Come to the Father. 
I delight not in corruptible food, nor in the entertainments of 
this world. The bread of God is what I covet ; heavenly bread, 
bread of life, namely, the flesh of Christ Jesus the Son of God, 
who in these last times became the Son of David and of Abra- 
ham : and I am athirst for the drink of God, namely, his blood, 
which is a feast of love that faileth not, and life everlasting. 
I have no desire to live any longer among men ; neither shall 
I, if you will but consent 11 .' 

Here we may take notice of heavenly bread, bread of God, 
bread of life, our Lord's own phrases in John vi. And Ignatius 
understands them of spiritual food, of feeding upon the flesh of 
Christ, the Son of God incarnate. Drink of God, he interprets 
in like manner, of the blood of Christ ; which is the noblest feast, 
and life eternal. Learned men have disputed whether he intended 
what he said of sacramental food, or of celestial ; whether of en- 
joying Christ in the Eucharist, or in heaven. To me it appears a 
clear point, that he thought not of communicating, but of dying : 
and the Eucharist was not the thing which he so earnestly 
begged to have, (for who would refuse it ?) but martyrdom, 
which the Christians might endeavour to protract, out of an 
over-officious care for a life so precious. However, if the reader 
is desirous of seeing what has been pleaded on the side of the 
Eucharist, he may consult the authors referred to at the bottom 1 , 

h 7.Sov yap ypd<pu vfjuv, tpiav rov a"irfpfj.aros Aa$!5 Kal 'Afipaan' al 

diroQavtiv' 6 t/ubs epoas fffravpunai' irifyia tov 0fA.w rb af/ia ainov, 8 

Kal owe Hffriv kv 4fj.ol irvp <t>t\6v\ov' tffnv aydirri &<p6apros, Kal aeWaos 

vSa-p 8e <av, Kal \a\ovv eV ffJ.ol, fffca- fay. OUK tn 6e\ta Kara av&pdiirovs 

6(v fj.oi \tyov Stiipo irpos rbv irarepa. r)v TOVTO 5t etrrai, tav ii/Afts #A^- 

Oi/x fySo/jiai rpo<pfj <p6opas, oiiSe fiSovals fffjrf. Ignat. ad Rom. cap. 7? 8. 

rov fttov Totirov aprov eov 6f\<a, * Smith. Not. in Ignat. pp. IOI, 

uprov ovpavwv, &prov OJTJS, 8s effrtf 102. Grabe, Spicileg. torn. ii. p. 

ffapj 'lija-ov XpitrroD, TOV vlov, Tov 229. Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, 

fuv, TOV yfvojj.tvov iv var4p<f e/c part i. pp. 387, alias 392. 

vi. according to John vi. 101 

and may compare what others have pleaded on the contrary 
side k . 1 see no impropriety in Tgnatius's feeding on the flesh 
and blood of Christ in a state of glory 1 , since the figure is easily 
understood, and is made use of by others m besides Ignatius. 
Our enjoyment in a world to come is entirely founded in the 
merits of Christ's passion : and our Lord's intercession for us (as 
I have above hinted) stands on the same bottom. Our spiritual 
food, both above and below, is the enjoyment of the same Christ, 
the Lamb slain. The future feast upon the fruits of his atone- 
ment is but the continuation and completion of the present. Only 
here it is under symbols, there it will be without them : here it is 
remote and imperfect, there it will be proximate and perfect. 

It has been strongly averred, that Irenaeus understood John vi. 
of the Eucharist ; though he never directly quotes it, nor ever 
plainly refers to it : but it is argued, that by the Eucharistical 
symbols (according to Irenaeus) we have the principle of a blessed 
immortality conveyed to our bodies, for which there is no appear- 
ance of proof in Scripture, but in John vi. : therefore here is as 
clear proof of his so interpreting that chapter, as if he had cited 
it at length 11 . How inconclusive this kind of reasoning is, and 
how injurious besides to our main cause, is visible enough, and 
has been intimated before, in answer to the like pretence con- 
cerning Ignatius. It appears the worse with respect to Irenaeus, 
because he manifestly did found his doctrine on i Cor. x. 16, and 
expressly quoted it for that very purpose . He judged, as every 
sensible man must, that if the Eucharist, according to St. Paul, 

k Casaubon. Exercit. xvi. num. n Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, 

39. Albertinus, de Eucharist, lib. p. 387, alias 392. 

ii. c. i. p. 286. Halloixius, Vit. ' Vani autern omnimodo, qui . . . 

Ignat. p. 410. Ittigius, Hist. Eccles. carnis salutera negant, et regene- 

saec. ii. pp. 169, 170. rationem ejus spernunt, dicentes, 

1 A learned writer objects that non earn capacem esse incorrupti- 

the ' eating of Christ's flesh in an- bilitatis. Si autem non salvetur 

other world, is a way of expression haec, nee Dominus sanguine suo 

somewhat unaccountable.' John- redemit nos, neque calix Eucharis- 

son's Unbloody Sacr. i. p. 389, alias tiae communicatio sanguinis ejus 

394. eat, neque panis quern frangimus, 

m Athanashis de Incam. et contr. communicatio corporis ejus est." 

Arrian. p. 883. Damascen. torn. i. Iren. lib. v. cap. a. p. 293. ed. 

p. 172. Augustin. torn. v. p. 384. Bened. 

IO2 Spiritual Eating and Drinking, CHAP. 

amounts to a communion, or communication of our Lord's body 
and blood to every faithful receiver, that then such receiver, for 
the time being, is therein considered as symbolically fed with the 
crucified body, and of consequence entitled to be fellow-heir with 
the body glorified P. He draws the same conclusion % though 
more obscurely, from the words of the institution, 'This is my 
body,' &c. And the conclusion is certain, and irresistible, when 
the words are rightly understood. Therefore let it not be 
thought that we have no appearance of proof, where we have 
strong proof; neither let us endeavour to loosen an important 
doctrine from its firm pillars, whereon it may stand secure, only 
to rest it upon weak supports, which can bear no weight. 

Had Irenaeus been aware that John vi. was to be interpreted 
directly of the Eucharist, strange that he should not quote that 
rather than the other, or, however, along with the other, when he 
had so fair an occasion for it. Stranger still, that when he so 
frequently and so fully speaks his mind concerning the Eucharist, 
and with the greatest reverence imaginable, that he should never 
think of John vi. all the time ; that he should never make 
any use at all of it for advancing the honour of the Sacrament, 
had he supposed that it strictly belonged to it, and was to be 
interpreted of it. The silence of a man so knowing in the Scrip- 
tures, and so devoutly disposed towards this holy Sacrament, is 
a strong presumptive argument (were there nothing else) of 
his understanding John vi. very differently from what some have 

There is one place in Irenaeus which seems to carry some 
remote and obscure allusion to John vi. The Logos, the Divine 
nature of our Lord, according to him, is the perfect bread of the 
Father, and bread of immortality ; and he talks of eating and 
drinking the same Logos, or Word 1 ". If he had John vi. then 
in his eye, (which is not improbable,) he interpreted it, we see, 

P See the argument explained in . . . . &>s virb fj.aa-6ov TTJJ ffapKbs avrov 

a Charge, upon the Doctrinal Use rpa<j>fvres .... fOicrdevrfs rpcayftv ical 

of the Sacrament, vol. v. p. no, c. iriveiv rbv A.Ayov TOV Qtov, rbv TTJS 

i Irenaeus, lib. iv. cap. 18. p. 251 ; adavaa-ias &pTov, Sirtp earl rb Trvev/j.a 

lib. v. cap. 2. p. 294. TOV Trwrpfa. Iren. lib. iv. cap. 38. 

r 'O Upros 6 T(\fiot TOV irarpbs p. 284. 

vi. according to John vi. 103 

not of sacramental manducation, but of spiritual ; not of the 
signs, but of the things signified, apart from the signs. Only it is 
observable, that while he speaks of our feeding upon the Logos, 
he explains it as done through the medium of the flesh : it is 
the human nature, by which we are brought to feast upon the 
Divine. St. Chrysostom gives the like construction of bread of 
life in John vi., interpreting it, so far, of our Lord's Divine 
nature 8 . But I proceed. 

Our next ancient writer is Clemens of Alexandria, who flour- 
ished about A. D. 192. In the first book of his Paedagogue, 
chapter vi., he quotes several verses * of our Lord's discourse 
in St. John, commenting upon them after a dark, allegorical 
way ; so that it is not easy to learn how he understood the 
main doctrine of that chapter. I shall take notice of some 
of the clearest passages. After speaking of the Church under 
the figure or similitude of an infant, brought forth by Christ 
with bodily pain, and swaddled in his blood, he proceeds thus : 
' The Word is all things to the infant, a father, a mother, a pre- 
ceptor, a foster : Eat, says he, my flesh, and drink my blood. 
These are the proper aliments which our Lord administers : 
he reaches out flesh, and he pours out blood ; and nothing is 
wanting for the growth of the infants. O wonderful mystery ! 
he bids us lay aside the old carnal corruption, together with 
the antiquated food, and to partake of the new food of Christ, 
receiving him, if possible, so as to lay him up within ourselves 
and to inclose our Saviour in our breasts".' There is another 
passage, near akin to this, a few pages higher, which runs thus : 

' Our Lord, in the Gospel according to St. John, has other- 
wise introduced it under symbols, saying, Eat my flesh, and 
drink my blood; allegorically signifying the clear liquor of 
faith, and of the promise, by both which the Church, like man, 

8 Kol irpaTov irep\ rrjs 6e6rr)ro$ yap titfivri 8<a rbv &ebv \6yov apros 

O.VTOV Sia\ey{Tcu, Ktytav, ty<l> flfj.i 6 f<rriv. Chrysost. in Joan. Hom. xliv. 

&pros TTJS fcoijs. ouSe yap irepl TOV p. 264. torn. viii. ed. Bened. 
ffcafj.aros TOVTO rfpqrcu. itfpl yap ^Kf(. e John vi. 32, 33, 51, 53, 54> 55- 
vov Trpbs Ttf re\fi \tyti' nal 6 apros u 'O \6yos rci irdvra T(f vijirty, 

5e bv eytii 8a><r, TJ ffdp fnov Iffriv. K. r. \. Clem. Paedag. lib. i. cap. 

'AAAi Tos vtpl TTJS QfOTijros, K.a.1 6. p. 123. ed. Oxon. 

IO4 Spiritual Eating and Drinking, CHAP. 

compacted of many members, is watered and nourished, and 
is made up or compounded of both ; of faith as the body, and 
of hope as the soul, like as our Lord of flesh and blood x .' These 
hints appear to be very obscure ones, capable of being turned or 
wrested several ways. Some therefore have appealed to these 
and the like passages, to prove that Clemens understood John vi. 
of doctrines, or spiritual action sY. Others have endeavoured so 
to explain them, as to make them suit rather with the Eucha- 
rist 2 . Perhaps both may guess wide. In the first passage, 
Clemens says nothing of receiving either doctrines or Eucharist, 
but of receiving Christ himself : in the second, he does indeed 
speak of receiving faith and the promise ; but then he owns 
it to be an allegorical or anagogical view of the text ; from 
whence one may infer that he intended it not for the primary 
sense, or for strict interpretation. The doctrine which Clemens 
most clearly expresses, and uniformly abides by, is that Christ 
himself is our food and nutriment a : and, particularly, by shed- 
ding his blood for us b . 

At the end of Clemens, among the ' excerpta Theodoti,' there 
is a pretty remarkable passage ; which, though it belongs to a 
Valentinian author, may be worth the taking notice of c . Com- 
menting on John vi. he interprets the living bread, of the person 
of Christ : but as to our Lord's saying, ver. 49, ' The bread which 
I will give is my flesh,' he proposes a twofold construction, i . 
He understands it of the bread in the Eucharist. 2. Correcting 
his first thought, he interprets bread to mean the Church ; 

1 'O xvptos iv rip Kar' 'ltaavvt]V b Tpotptvs TJUUV \6yos rb avrov 

fvayythitf. K. T. \. Clem. ibid. p. inrep ijfj.cav tx fev afp&i v&fav rrjv 

121. a.vBp<airArj)ra. Clem. ibid. p. 124. 

y Dr. Whitby, Dr. Claget, Bas- TJ> avrb apa Kal afjuo, Kal -yaAa rov 

nage Annal. torn. i. p. 320. itvplov irdOovs Kal SiSacr/caAiaj ffvpfio- 

z Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, \ov. p. 127. 
part i. p. 255, &c. c 'O GUV &prros, 6 virb rov irarpbs 

8 'O Kvpios, ri rpoifii rwv vrfit(a>v. SoOels, 6 vi&s effn, rots taQiftv @ov\o- 

Clem. ibid. p. 124. ff rpotyii, rovrfcrri /xcVot?. 6 tie &pros t>v ty& $(>ffa>, <f>rifflv, 

Kvpios 'IrjiroCj. Ibid. IHUV 5e avrbs 6 rj ""^fl M u to"riv. tfroi $ rpftpfrai rj 

Xpicrris i] rpo<(>^i TO?S vniriois. p. 125. <rop{ 8ja TTJJ (vxapHrrlas, ^ oirtp Kal 

&prov avrov ovpaviav 6/40\oyei 6 \6yos. /j.a\\oi>, r) rb trw/ua avrov tcrriv, 

Ibid. iro\\ax<>>s a.\Krijopt1ra.i 6 \6yos, Sirtp i<rr\v ri tKK\r)<rla, &pros ovpd- 

Kal ftpte/iia, Kal fl"ap|, Kal rpo<f>^>, Kal fios, ffvvayoay^i fv\oyTjufvrt. Excerpt. 

Upros, Kal of/ia, Kal yd\a. p. 126. Theod. apud Clem. p. 971. 

vi. according to John vi. 105 

having, as I conceive, I Cor. x. 17 in his eye, 'We being many 
are one bread, and one body.' Of what weight or authority 
a Valentinian gloss ought to be in this case, I pretend not to 
say : but this is the first clear precedent we shall meet Avith 
in antiquity, for interpreting any part of John vi. directly 
of the Eucharist. And it is observable, that it was offered only 
in the conjectural way, and another interpretation presently 
subjoined as preferable to it. 

Tertullian quotes two verses out of John vi. And he inter- 
prets the bread there mentioned, not of the sacramental bread, 
but of Christ himself ; not of the signs, but of the things signi- 
fied. Presently after, he quotes part of the words of the 
institution, ' This is my body,' referring to the Eucharist : and 
there he does not say that our Lord's body is that bread, (as he 
had said before, that Christ, or the Logos, is our bread,) but 
that the Lord's body is understood, or considered, in bread : as 
much as to say, the Eucharistical bread is by construction that 
natural body of Christ which is the true bread. And for this 
he refers not to John vi. but to the words of the institution. 
Tertullian here joined together the spiritual food mentioned in 
John vi. in the abstract way, and the same as conveyed in the 
Eucharist; but he did not interpret John vi. of the Eucharist* 3 . 

It has been suggested by some 6 , that Tertullian understood 
John vi. merely of faith, or doctrine, or spiritual actions : and it 
is strenuously denied by others f . The passage upon which the 
dispute turns is part of his reply to Marcion ; who took a handle 
from the words, 'the flesh profiteth nothing,' to argue against 
the resurrection of the body. 

' Though he says, " the flesh profiteth nothing," yet the sense 
is to be governed by the subject-matter. For because they 

d ' Panem nostrum quotidianum et corpus ejus in pane censetur : 

da nobis hodie, spiritualiter potius Hoc est corpus meum.' Tertull. de 

intelligamus : Christus enim panis Orat. cap. vi. p. 131. 

noster est, quia vita Christus, et e Dr. Claget, Dr. Whitby, &c. 

vita panis : Ego sum, inquit, panis Compare Basnag. Annal. torn. i. p. 

vitae. Joh. vi. 35. Et paulo supra, 320. 

v. 33 : Panis est sermo Dei vivi, { Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, 

qui descendit de caelis. Turn quod part i. p. 358, &c. 

io6 Spiritual Eating and Drinking, CHAP. 

thought it an hard and intolerable saying, as if he had intended 
really to give them his flesh to eat ; therefore in order to resolve 
the affair of salvation into the spirit, he premised that " it is the 
spirit that quickeneth," and then subjoined, that "the flesh profiteth 
nothing ; " namely, towards quickening. He shews also what he 
would have them understand by spirit : " the words that I speak 
unto you, they are spirit and they are life," comformable to what 
he had said before ; " he that heareth my words, and believeth in 
him that sent me, hath everlasting life," &c. Therefore as he 
makes the word the quickener, because the word is spirit and 
life, he calls the same his flesh, inasmuch as the word was made 
flesh; which consequently is to be hungered after for the sake 
of life, and to be devoured by the ear, and to be chewed by the 
understanding, and digested by faith : for a little before also he 
had pronounced the heavenly bread to be his flesh f ,' &c. 

All that one can justly gather from this confused passage is 
that Tertullian interpreted the bread of life in John vi. of the 
Word ; which he sometimes makes to be vocal, and sometimes 
substantial, blending the ideas in a very perplexed manner : so 
that he is no clear authority for construing John vi. of doctrines, 
&c. All that is certain is, that he supposes the Word made 
flesh, the Word incarnate, to be the heavenly bread spoken of in 
that chapter. 

There is another place in Tertullian &, where by flesh and 

1 ' Etsi carnem ait nihil prodesse, spiritus et vita sermo, eundem etiam 

ex materia dicti dirigendus eat sen- cariiem suam dixit, quia et sermo 

sus. Nam quia durum et intolera- caro erat factus : proinde in causam 

bilem existimaverunt sermonem ejus, vitae appetendus, et devorandus 

quasi vere carnem suam illis eden- auditu, et ruminandus inteliectu, et 

dam determinasset ; ut in spiritual fide digerendus ; nam et paulo ante, 

disponeret statum salutis, praemisit, carnem suam panem quoque caeles- 

" spiritus est quivivificat :" atqueita tern pronuntiarat,' &c. Tertull. de 

subjunxit "caro nihil prodest;" advi- Resurr. Carn. cap. xxxvii. p. 347. 
vificandum scilicet. Exsequitur etiam ' Panis qu,em ego dedero pro 

quid velit intelligi spiritum : "Verba salute mundi, caro mea est. Quod 

quae locutus sum vobis, spiritus sunt, si una caro, et una anima, ilia tristis 

vita aunt." Sicut et supra, " Qui audit usque ad mortem, et ilia panis pro 

sermones meos, et credit in eum qui mundi salute ; salvus est numeru.s 

me misit, habet vitam aeternam, et duarum substantiarum, in suo genere 

in judicium non veniet, sed transiet distantium, excludeus carneae ani- 

de morte in vitam." Itaque sermo- mae unicam speciem.' De Carn. 

nem constituens vivificatorem, quia Christi, cap. xiii. p. 319. 

vi. according to John vi. 107 

bread in John^vi. he very plainly understands, not the sacra- 
mental, but natural body of Christ, not doctrine, but literally 
flesh ; as indeed our Lord evidently meant it. For as to verses 
53> 54? &c., the figure is not in the word ' flesh/ but in the words 
( eating and drinking,' as learned men have very justly observed 11 . 
But then this is to be so understood, that the eating and drinking 
the natural body and blood amount to receiving the fruits of the 
blood shed, and body slain ; otherwise there is a figure in the 
words ' body and blood,' as put for the fruits of them, if eating 
amounts simply to receiving. But I pass on. 

Much dispute has been 1 about Origen's construction or con- 
structions (for he has more than one) of John vi. The passages 
produced in the debate are so many, and the pleadings here and 
there so diffuse, that it would be tedious to attend every par- 
ticular. I shall endeavour to select a few critical places, from 
whence one may competently judge of his sentiments upon the 
whole thing. 

Origen's general observation relating to that chapter is, that 
it must not be literally, but figuratively understood k. He 
commonly understands the living bread of the Divine Logos, as 
the true nutriment of the soul 1 , the Logos, but considered as 
incarnate m . At other times, he allegorizes the flesh of Christ 
in a very harsh manner, making it a name for high mysterious 

h ' Figura autem non est in carne, manducaveritis carnem meam, et 

vera enim Christ! caro ad vitam est biberitis sanguinem meum," occidit 

manducanda : superest igitur ut sit haec litera.' Orig. in Levit. Horn, 

in manducandi vocabulo, quod a cor- vii. p. 225. ed. Bened. 

poris organis, ad facilitates animae > ' Ego sum panis vivus, &c. Qui 

figurate transferatur." Albertinus, haec dicebatverbum era t, quo animae 

p. 525. ' Caro et sanguis nihil aliud pascuntur Intuearis quomodo 

designant quam quod verba prae se Justus semper et sine intermissione 

ferunt, ac proinde nee aenigma, nee manducet de pane vivo, et repleat 

parabola sunt . . . . At id nullo modo animam suam, ac satiet earn cibo cae- 

evincit vocabulum manducandi non lesti, qui est verbuni Dei et sapientia 

esse metaphoricum, aut manducati- ejus.' Orig. in Levit. Horn. xvi. p. 

onem illam de manducatione spiri- 266. ed. Bened. 

tuali non esse intelligendum.' Ibid. m AUTTJ Se ^ativ TJ o\Tj0r)s 0pw<m, 

526. <rap \ptffrov, T}TIS \6yos oSffa, yf- 

1 See Johnson's Unbloody Sacri- yove ffdp- /caret rb tlpti^tvov /cat 6 

fice, part i. pp. 360 373. \6yos <rap\ ejfvf-o. Orig. trtpl eu^. p. 

k 'Si secundum literam sequaris 244. 
hoc ipsum quod dictum est, " nisi 

io8 Spiritual Eating and Drinking, CHAP. 

doctrines n . All that he should have said, and probably all that 
he really meant, was, that the mind is prepared and fitted for 
enjoying the fruits of Christ's body and blood, the benefits of his 
passion, by those Divine truths, those heavenly contemplations. 
He should have distinguished the qualifications for receiving 
from the thing to be received. Believing in Christ is not enjoying 
him, but it is in order to it : and the doctrine of the atonement 
is not the atonement itself, whereon we are to feed. But I return 
to our author. 

In another place he observes, that the blood of Christ may be 
drank, not only in the use of the Sacraments, but by receiving 
his words; and he interprets the drinking his blood to mean 
the embracing his doctrines . Here again he mistakes the means 
for the end, the qualification for the enjoyment, the duty for the 
blessing, or reward, just as he did before. However, he is right 
in judging, that the Sacraments are not the only means, or 
instruments, in and by which God confers his graces, or applies 
the atonement, though they are the most considerable. 

It should be noted that Origen, in the passage last cited, 
was commenting upon Numb, xxiii. 24, ' Drink the blood of 
the slain :' and he had a mind to allegorize it, as his way was, 
into something evangelical. So he thought first of the blood of 
Christ ; and could he have rested there, he need not have looked 
beyond the benefits of the grand sacrifice : but it happened that 
' slain' was in the plural; and so, to make his allegory hit, he was 
necessitated to take in more than one ; therefore he pitched upon 
the Apostles to join with Christ, as slain for Christ. The next 
thing was to interpret blood in such a sense as might equally fit 

n 'Ubi enim mysticus sermo, ubi pp. 359, 360. 

dogmaticus et Trinitatis fide repletus ' Bibere autem dicimur sanguinem 

proferturet solidus, ubifuturi saeculi, Christi, non solum sacramentorum 

araoto velamine literae, legis spiri- ritu, sedet cumsermones ejus recipi- 

tualis sacramenta panduntur, ubi mus, in quibus vita consistit, sicut et 

spes animae, &c. . .. Haec omnia ipse dicit : Verba quae locutus sum, 

carries sunt verbi Dei, quibus qui spiritus et vita est. Est ergo ipse 

potest perfecto intellectu vesci, et vulneratus, cujus nos sanguinem bi- 

corde purificato, ille vere festivitatis bimus, id est, doctrinae ejus verba 

paschae immolat sacrificium, et diem suscipiraus. ' Orig. in Num. Horn, 

festum agit cum Deo et angelis xvi. p. 334. Cp. Horn. vii. in Levit. 

ejus.' Orig. Horn, in Num. xxiii. p. 225. 

vi. according to John vi. 109 

both Christ and his Apostles, and so he interpreted it to mean 
doctrines : and now the ' blood of the slain' turns out, at length, 
doctrines of the slain, and the allegory becomes complete P. I 
thought it proper thus briefly to hint how Origen fell into that 
odd construction, because he may be looked upon, in a manner, 
as the father of it : whatever weight the admired Origen may 
justly have as to other cases, he can have but little in this, where 
he manifestly trifled. 

I shall cite but one passage more from him ; a very remark- 
able one, and worth the noting. After having spoken of the 
outward sign of the Eucharist, he goes on thus : ' So much for 
the typical and symbolical body. But T might also have many 
things to say of the Logos himself, who became flesh and true 
food, and of which whosoever eats, he shall live for ever, no 
wicked man being capable of eating it. For were it possible 
for an ill man, as such, to feed upon him who was made flesh, 
the Logos, and the living bread, it would not have been written 
that whosoever eateth of this bread shall live for ever Q.' Here 
we may observe, that Origen interprets the true food, and living 
bread, not of doctrines, nor of the sacramental bread, (the typical, 
symbolical body,) but of Christ himself, of the Word made flesh : 
and as to the eating that true food, he understands it of a vital 
union with the Logos, a spiritual participation of Christ. This 
is a just construction of John vi., and falls in with that which I 
have recommended in this chapter. A learned writer, who had 
taken uncommon pains to shew that the Fathers interpreted 
John vi. of the Eucharist, was aware that this passage of Origen 
was far from favouring his hypothesis, and therefore frankly 
declared that he ' could not pretend to understand it r ; ' 

P ' Sed et illi nihilominus vulnerati TIV a & <pay&v irdvrws tfioTrai tls rlv 

sunt, quinobis verbumejuspraedica- alSiva, ovSevbs Swa^tvov <pav\ov 4ff6i- 

runt. Ipsorum enim, id est, Aposto- eiv avr-fiv. el yap olov re -f\v en <pav- 

loruin ejus verba cum legimus, et \ov /j.fv ovra effdtetif rlv yev6nevov 

vitam ex eis consequimur, vuinera- adpica., \6yov fora, /ecu &prov <avra, 

torum sanguinem bibimus.' Orig. OVK bv eytypairro, on iras 6 (paywv 

ibid. rbv &proi> rovrov ^jfferai *s rbv 

H Kcu ravra /uev irepl rov TVWIKOV aluiva. Orig. in Matt. p. 254. ed. 

Kol ffVfJi$O\lKOV (TlbfMTOS' TTU\\O. 8' kv Huet. 

Kal Tttpl airrov \eyoiro rov \6yov, &y r Johnson'a Unbloody Sacrifice, 
ytyovf o-op|, Ktti a.\t}QivT] fipSxris, 1\v part i. p. 373. 

I jo Spiritual Eating and Drinking, CHAP. 

observing, however, that it could not at all favour another opinion, 
espoused by Dr. Whitby and others ; meaning the doctrinal in- 
terpretation. The truth is, that it favours neither, but directly 
overthrows both : and had that very ingenious and learned 
author being aware of any middle opinion, which would stand 
clear of the difficulties of both extremes, it is more than probable 
that he would have closed in with it. 

Cyprian, who was but a few years later than Origen, comes 
next to be considered. The most observable passage, so far as 
concerns our present purpose, occurs in his Exposition of the 
Lord's Prayer : I have thrown it to the bottom of the page 8 , 
for the learned reader to judge of, and may here save myself 
the trouble of translating it. But I shall offer a few remarks 
upon it. i. Cyprian, in this passage, does not interpret 'bread 
of life' of the Eucharistical bread, but of Christ himself 1 , thrice 
over. 2. He seems to give the name of Lord's body in the Eu- 
charist to the sacramental bread, as representative and exhibitive 
of the natural body. 3. But then a communicant must receive 
worthily, must receive 'jure communicationis,' under a just right 
to communion, otherwise it is nothing. 4. Therefore it concerns 
every one to preserve to himself that right by suitable behaviour, 
and not to incur any just forfeiture by misbehaviour. 5. For, if 
he incurs just censure, and is justly debarred from communion, 
he is shut out from Christ Such is the form and process of 

' Panis vitae Christus est : et manifestum est eos vivere qui corpus 

panis hie omnium non est, sed noster ejus attingunt et Eucharistiam jure 

est. . . . Christus eorum qui corpus communicationis accipiunt, ita con- 

ejus contingunt, panis est. Hunc tra tenendum est et orandum, ne 

autem panem dari nobis quotidie dum quis abstentus separatur a 

postulamus, ne qui in Cbristo sumus, Christi corpore, procul remaneat a 

et Eucharistiam quotidie ad cibum salute, comminante ipso et dicente : 

salutis accipimus, intercedente aliquo nisi ederitis carnem filii hominis et 

graviore delicto, dum abstenti et non biberitis sanguinein ejus, non habe- 

communicantes a caelesti pane pro- bitis vitam in vobis. Et ideo panem 

hibemur, a Christi corpore separemur, nostrum, id est, Christum, dari nobis 

ipso praedicante et monente : Ego quotidie petimus, ut qui in Christo 

sum panis vitae, qui de caelo descen- manemus etvivimus, a sanctificatione 

di : si quis ederit de meo pane, vivet ejus et corpore non recedamus.' 

in aeternum. Panis autem quern ego Cypr. de Orat. Domin. pp. 209, 210. 

dedero, caro mea est pro saeculi vita. BO. Bened. ; alias 146, 147. 

Quando ergo dicit in aeternum vi- * Compare Albertinus, pp. 377, 

vere si quis ederit de ejus pane, ut 378. 

vi. according to John vi. in 

Cyprian's reasoning : and it must be owned that John vi. is very 
pertinently alleged by him, in order to convince every serious 
Christian of the necessity of his continuing in a state fit for 
the reception of the holy Communion, and not such as shall 
disqualify him for it. For since our Lord there lays so great 
a stress upon eating his flesh and drinking his blood ; and since 
communicating worthily is one way of doing it; and since, if we 
are rendered morally unfit for that, we must of course be morally 
unfit for all other ways, and so totally debarred from feeding 
upon Christ at all, for life and happiness : these things con- 
sidered, it is very obvious to perceive that John vi., though not 
particularly pointing to the Eucharist, is yet reductively appli- 
cable to it, in the way of argumentation, and is of very great force 
for the exciting Christians to a reverential regard for it, and to 
a solicitous care that they may never, by any fault of theirs, 
be debarred from it. In short, though John vi. doth not 
directly speak of the Eucharist, yet Christians, in the due use 
of that sacrament, do that which is there mentioned, do really 
eat his flesh and drink his blood, in the spiritual sense there in- 
tended ; therefore Cyprian had good reason to quote part of that 
chapter, and to apply the same as pertinent to the Eucharist, 
in the way of just inference from it, upon known Christian 

Cyprian elsewhere quotes John vi. 53, ['except ye eat the 
flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in 
you,'] in order to enforce the necessity of Baptism". Either he 
thought that the spiritual feeding, mentioned in St. John, was 
common both to Baptism and the Eucharist, and might be in- 
differently obtained in either sacrament : or else the turn of his 
thought was this, that as there is no life without the Eucharist, 
and as Baptism must go before the Eucharist, Baptism must of 
course be necessary in order to come at the kingdom of God. 
If this last was Cyprian's thought, then indeed he interpreted 

u ' Ad regnum Dei nisi baptizatus Nisi ederitis carnem filii hominis et 

etrenatusfuerit pervenire non posse, biberitis sanguinem ejus, non babe- 

In Evangelic cata Jobannem. Nisi bitis vitam in vobis.' Cypr. Tes- 

quis renatus fuerit, &c. Item illic: timon. lib. iii. c. 25. p. 314. 

112 Spiritual Eating and Drinking, CHAP. 

John vi. directly of the Eucharist : but I incline to understand 
him according to the other view first mentioned ; and the 
rather because we shall find the same confirmed by the African 
Fulgentius, in his turn. 

Novatian of the same age appears to understand John vi. of 
spiritual manducation at large, feeding upon a right faith (which 
of course must take in faith in the merits of Christ's passion) 
and conscience undefiled, and an innocency of soul. He refers 
to John vi. 27, and immediately after adds, that righteousness 
and continence, and the other virtues, are the worship which 
God requires : he had before intimated that they were the true, 
the holy, and the clean food x . But, I presume, all this was to 
be so understood as not to exclude the salutary virtue of Christ's 
atonement : only the subject he was then upon led him not to 
speak plainly of it. In another work, he understands Christ 
himself to be the bread of life, and makes it an argument of his 
Divinity 7, referring to John vi. 51. So that if we take the 
author's whole sense on this head, Christ or the fruits of his 
death, together with our own faith and virtues, are our bread of 
life, our spiritual food, as taught in John vi. 

We may now come down to the fourth century, where we 
shall meet with Eusebius, a writer of considerable note. His 
common way is to interpret the bread of life, or heavenly bread, 
of Christ himself, of the heavenly Logos become incarnate z . He 
understands John vi. of spiritual eating, and intimates that 
Judas received the bread from heaven, the nutriment of the 
soul : not meaning what he said of Judas's receiving the sacra- 
mental bread in the Eucharist ; but, I conceive, his meaning 

* 'Cibus, inquam, verus, et sanctus, signavit Deus. Justitia, inquam, et 

et mundus est fides recta, immaculata continentia, et reliquis Deus virtu- 

conscientia, et innocens anima. Quis- tibus colitur.' Novat. de Cib. Judaic, 

quis sic pascitur, Christo convesci- c. v. p. 140. ed. Welchm. 

tur : talis epulator conviva est Dei ; * ' Si homo tantummodo Christus, 

istae sunt epulae quae angelos pas- quomodo refert, Ego sum panis vitae 

cunt; istae sunt mensae quae mar- aeternae, &c. . ..cum neque panis 

tyres faciunt.. . . Hinc ilia Christi, vitae homo esse possit, ipse mortalis/ 

Operaniini autem non escam quae &c. Novat. de Trin. c. xiv. p. 46 ; 

perit, sed escam permanentem in cp. c. xvi. p. 54. 

vitam aeternam, quam filius ho- z Eusebius in Psalm, pp. 81, 267, 

minis vobis dabit; hunc enim Pater 47 1. In Isx p. 586. 

vi. according to John vi. 113 

was, that Judas had been blessed with heavenly instructions and 
Divine graces, though he made an ill use of them. He had 
tasted of the heavenly gift, of the blessed influences of the 
Divine Logos, but fell away notwithstanding a . 

Eusebius, in another place, interprets flesh and blood in 
John vi. of our Lord's mystical body and blood, as opposed to 
natural b . And when he comes afterwards to explain this mys- 
tical body and blood, he interprets the same of words and doc- 
trines c , grounding his exposition on John vi. 63, ' The words that 
I speak,' &c. A learned author d endeavours to make Eusebius 
contradict himself in the same chapter : but he is consistent so 
far, which will evidently appear to any one that reads him with 
attention. However, I think his interpretation of John vi. to 
be forced and wide. It was very odd to make doctrines the 
mystical body and blood, and to say, that the doctrines, or 
words then spoken, were what our Lord intended afterwards to 
' give for the life of the world :' such construction appears 
altogether harsh and unnatural. Besides, since Eusebius inter- 
preted ' bread of life' of our Lord's Divine nature, he ought 
certainly to have understood that bread, which our Lord was to 
give, to be the human nature, the natural body and blood. But 
my business here is not so much to dispute as to report : and it 
is plain enough that Eusebius followed Origen in this matter, 
and that both of them favoured the same mystical or allegorical 
construction ; whether constantly and uniformly, I need not 

Athanasius was contemporary with Eusebius, as a young 
man with one grown into years. He occasionally gives us his 
thoughts upon John vi. 61, 62, 63, in these words: 'Here he 
has made mention of both, as meeting in himself, both flesh and 

a 2tW(mos 5e $>v Tt? $i$a(TKd\(p, ov Kal ctf/uaTos. Euseb. Eccles. Theol. 

r'bv Koivbv aprov avrip /j-dvov avveff- contr. Marcell. p. 179, 
6itv, a\\a Kal TT)S i/'i'X'i* BpfrriKov c "Ciffre aina ilvat TO. p-fi^ara Kal 

/u.eTaXa/i/Sat'eij' T)IOUTO' irepl ov f\*ytv TOVS \6yovs avTov, T^}V ffdpKa Kal -rb 

6 ffonijf tyw tl/j.t & apros & K TOV at/ua, Siv 6 /uiTe'xw altl, uffavd aprcp 

ovpavov Kara&as, Kal fa^v StSovs rots ovpaviy Tpe<p6/j.fvos, TTJS ovpaviov fj.(ff- 

av6p<airois. Euseb. in Psalm, p. 171. e|ct fays- Euseb. ibid. p. 180. 

b Oil TrepJ fjs avfi\ij<pf (rap/cor Sif\ty- d Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, 

CTO, irepi Sf TOV /uuffTiKoC vw/j.ar6s re part i. pp. 373j 374- 


114 Spiritual Eating and Drinking, CHAP. 

spirit ; and he has distinguished the spirit from the flesh, that 
they believing not only the visible part of him, but the invisible 
also, might learn that his discourse was not carnal, but spiritual. 
For, how many men must the body have sufficed for food, if it 
were to have fed all the world 1 But for that very reason he inti- 
mated beforehand the Son of man's ascension into heaven, to draw 
them off from corporeal imaginations, and to teach them that the 
flesh which he had been speaking of, was to be heavenly meat 
from above, and spiritual food, which he would give them : For, 
says he, the words which I have spoken, they are spirit and life. 
As much as to say, That which outwardly appears, and is to be 
given for the salvation of the world, is this flesh which I bear 
about me : but this, with the blood thereof, shall be by me 
spiritually given for food, spiritually dispensed to every one, for 
a preservative unto all, to secure to them a resurrection to life 
eternal e .' Thus far he. The observations which I have here- 
upon to offer are as follow : i . Our author very justly construes 
the flesh which Christ was to give, of his natural body ; and 
supposes no figure in the word flesh. 2. He as rightly supposes 
some figure to lie in the words ' given for meat,' which he would 
have to be spiritually understood. 3. The spiritual, or hidden 
meaning, according to our author, is, that the flesh is joined with 
spirit, the humanity with the Divinity, and therefore in the giving 
his flesh to eat, he at the same time imparts his Divinity with the 
happy influences of it. 4. The flesh, or human nature, being all 
that was seen, we ought to raise our minds up to the Divinity 
united to it, and veiled under it ; and so may we spiritually 
feast upon it, and be sealed to a happy resurrection by it. 

Such is Athanasius's comment upon John vi., worthy of him- 
self, and (like most other things of his) neat, clear, and judicious. 
Here is not one word of the Eucharist : neither do I see any 
certain grounds to persuade us that he had it in his mind ; 
though I am sensible that the generality of the learned do 
conceive that he had f . The thought appears juster and 

e Athanas. Epist. iv. ad Serapion, pleases, Johnson's Unbloody Sacri- 

p. 71- ed. Bened. fice, (part i. pp. 167, 374,) which in- 

1 The reader may compare, if he terprets Athanasius of the Eucharist. 

vi. according to John vi. 115 

finer g, without that supposition, than with it, so that there is no 
necessity at all for it. He could hardly understand ' flesh' of 
Christ's natural flesh, and still imagine it to be given in the Eu- 
charist, unless he had added, virtually, constructionally, or in effect, 
which he does not : his construction of ' spiritual' is, that our 
Lord's Divine spirit goes along with that natural flesh, to make 
it salutary food to us. Besides, to interpret our Lord's giving 
his flesh ' for the life of the world,' of his giving it symbolically in 
the Eucharist (rather than really on the cross), is too low and too 
jejune a sense to be fathered upon a person of his great discern- 
ment. Add to this, that he speaks expressly of spiritual man- 
ducation, not of oral or corporal, and therefore cannot be under- 
stood to interpret John vi. of sacramental eating and drinking b . 
My persuasion therefore is, that the passage relates not at all to 
the Eucharist, but to our Lord's becoming man, in order to bring 
us up to God ; or, in short, to his taking our humanity, and 
making an atonement for us, in order to feast us with his 
Divinity, and so to raise us up to himself. In another place, 
Athanasius distinguishes the bread which is Christ, from the 
bread which Christ gives (referring to John vi.), and he resolves 
the latter into the flesh of our Lord, but as operating in virtue 
of the Holy Spirit. He observes, that we receive that heavenly 
bread here, as the firstfruits of what we are to receive hereafter, 
inasmuch as we receive the flesh of Christ, which is a quickening 
spirit I He had before supposed that Christ had insinuated the 

However, it is very certain, that this aliLviov K\-npoi>o/j.ov/j.fv. Athanas. 

passage is no way favourable to those Orat. iii. p. 5^4- Cp. Sermo 

who would construe John vi. of pre- Major, in Nov. Collect, pp. 6, 7- 

cepts or doctrines. de Incarnat. contra Arian. pp. 874, 

s He seems to express the same 876. 

thought, where, without any view to fc Vid. Chamier, de Eucharist, lib. 

the Eucharist, he says : 'As our Lord xi. c. 5. p. 613. 

by putting on a body was made man, ' "On ird\ii> 6 Kvptos \tyei trtpl 

so are we men made divine by the eavrov, tyui elf^t b &pro$ 6 <av, 6 K 

Logos, being assumed through his rov ovpavov Ka.Ta.fids. a\\axov TO 

flesh, and so of consequence heirs to Hyiov irvfv/j.a Ka,\e7 &prov ovpdvtov, 

eternal life.' 'Us yap 6 Kvpios fvSvff- \eycev rov 6prov i,^iav ri>v sirioixnov 

d/4tvos TO (roijua yeyovev &v9piinros' Sbs fifjuv o"l)fj.epov' 5fae yap 7] tv 

OVTWS ^ueTs Ko.1 livOpunroi Tropo rov rjj fi>xrj tv T< vvv alHavi alreiv TOV 

\6yov re 6eotroiovfji(6a, irpocrX-rityBevTes tirwvffiov &prov, TovrtffTi T&V jiteX- 

5iek -njs ffapKbs avrov, Kal \onrbv o>V \ovra, ov awapxV exi u> ' ^ v T F v ^ v 

I 3 

Ii6 Spiritual Eating and Drinking, CHAP. 

union of the Logos with his humanity, and now here he sup- 
poses that a conjunction of the Spirit is insinuated likewise ; 
since the Logos and the Spirit are inseparable. But nothing is 
here said directly of the Eucharist ; so that it cannot be hence 
certainly inferred that Athanasius interpreted John vi. of the 
Eucharist, or that he so much as applied it that way : his 
thoughts, in both these passages, seem to have been intent upon 
quite another thing. A learned man, to make this last passage 
look the more favourable to his scheme, renders part of it thus : 
' We have the firstfruits of the future repast in this present life, 
in the communion of the body of our Lord k :' where the whole 
force of the plea lies in the phrase 'communion of the Lord's 
body,' and the idea which it is apt to convey to an English reader. 
Let but the place be rendered literally, ' partaking of the flesh of 
the Lord V and the idea vanishes. It is certain, that flesh there 
means natural flesh, not sacramental, or symbolical ; because it is 
the firstfruits of the future repast, (which will be real, not sacra- 
mental,) and means, according to* our author, partaking of the 
Holy Spirit Therefore one would wonder how any attentive 
reader should conceive that Athanasius here speaks directly and 
positively, or at all, of oral manducation. That he speaks of 
spiritual manducation is self-evident : and he might mean it 
of spiritual manducation at large ; for he says nothing of the 
Eucharist in particular, to confine it to that single form or 
instance of it. 

Cyril of Jerusalem, in bis Catechetical Lectures to the unini- 
tiated, interprets John vi. 64 of good doctrine m . But in what 

fafj, rrjs vapKos rov Kvplov jueraAa/u- of the same flesh. Orat. iii. pp. 571, 

Pdvovres, Ka.6&s avros the 6 apros 572, 573, 582, 583, 588. Serino 

Se t>i> eyu Swffoi, y <rdp| /j.ov la-rlv inrep Major, p. 7. de Incarn. contr. 

TTJS rov n6o~fi.ov a>5)?. irvevfj-a, yap fao- Arian. p. 875. 

vowvf f) ffdp tffn rov Kvpiov. Athan. m TIfpl Se TTJJ Ka\rjs SiSatTKaXias 

de Incarn. p. 883. avros 6 Kvpios \tyti' ra pTj/uora & 

k Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, eyw \e\d\i)ica vulv irvtvud tari, Kal 

part i. p. 375. <ei) tffnv avrl rov irvevp.a.rtKd. tan. 

1 It is a thought which Athanasius .. .. Ta ^uara & iyw \e\d\r]Ka vfj.?v, 

dwells much upon, that Christ took Mtv/id turiv 'iva /XT; \a.\iav x fl ^f' av 

our flesh upon him, to make himself rovro tlvai vo/, dAAck r^v /coAV 

one with us; and that we are par- SiSaffKa\(af. Cyrill.Hierosol.Catech. 

takers of him, by being partakers xvi. sect. 13, 14. pp. 250, 251. 

vi. according to John vi. 117 

he says to the initiated, he applies John vi. 54 to the Eucharist 11 . 
To reconcile both places, or both constructions, we may fairly 
presume that he supposed our Saviour, in verse the 64th, to 
intimate, that what he had said was, in the general, true and 
sublime doctrine, but withal spiritual ; and in verse the 54th, to 
intimate, that his flesh and blood were to be spiritually fed upon 
by the faithful. Thus both parts are consistent : for this doctrine 
of spiritual manducation was spiritual doctrine. And Cyril here 
applies that very doctrine to the case of the Eucharist, because he 
had ground sufficient, from other Scriptures, to conclude, that such 
spiritual manducation was a privilege of that sacrament, though 
not of that only. So he did not directly interpret John vi. of 
the Eucharist, but he so applied it, and that very properly. 

Hilary, of that time, undertaking to prove that we are one 
with Christ by a closer union than bare will and consent 
amount to, draws an argument from the sacrament of the Eu- 
charist (as he does likewise in the same place from the sacrament 
of Baptism) to prove a real and permanent, but spiritual union 
between Christ and his true members. The thread of his argu- 
ment is this : In and by the eucharistical food, we spiritually 
receive the Word incarnate, and are mystically united with the 
natural flesh and blood of Christ, our bodies with his body : and 
we are thereby truly and substantially (therefore not in consent 
only) united with Christ . To confirm the reality of such union, 
he appeals to John vi. 55, 56, 'My flesh is meat indeed ; he that 
eateth my flesh, dwelleth in me, and I in him.' It is observable 
that he distinguishes the eucharistical food from the food men- 
tioned in John vi., for in or by the former we receive the latter, 
according to him. Therefore he does not interpret John vi. of 
the Eucharist ; but, taking it for an acknowledged principle, 
that by the due use of one we come at the other, he pertinently 

Cyrill. Hierosol. Catech. xxii. camera corporis sui sumimus.' Hilar. 

tagog. iv. c. 4. pp. 520, 521. de Trin. lib. viii. sect 13. p. 954. Cp. 

1 Si enim vere verbum caro fac- Chrysost. in Joan. Horn. xlvi. pp. 

turn est, et vere nos verbum carnem 272, 273. Bened. Cyrill. Alex, de 

cibo Dominico sumimus ; quomodo Trin. Dial. i. p. 407. And compare 

nonnaturalitermanerein nobis exis- my Charge, vol. v. p. Iil3. 
timandus est &c.... vere, sub mysterio 

1 1 8 Spiritual Eating and Drinking, CHAP. 

accommodates or applies the doctrine of John vi. to the Eu- 
charist. In a word, Hilary does not teach that the Eucharist 
is that flesh and blood of Christ mentioned in John vi., but that 
the flesh and blood there mentioned is received in or by the Eu- 
charist, is spiritually or mystically received ; ' sub mysterio,' as 
he expresses it P. 

Basil says, ' It is good and profitable to communicate daily of 
the sacred body and blood of Christ, since he himself plainly says, 
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal 
life <!.' He argues justly, because the consideration drawn from 
John vi. is and ought to be of great force : not that John vi. speaks 
of the outward Sacrament, but of spiritual manducation at large, 
and of inward grace ; which, as we learn from other Scriptures, 
does ordinarily (where there is no impediment) go along with the 
Sacrament. Basil therefore does not interpret John vi. of the 
Sacrament, but he applies the general doctrine there taught to 
one particular instance whereunto it ordinarily belongs : else- 
where he interprets it of spiritual (not oral) manducation of the 
flesh of Christ r. 

Gregory Nyssen is sometimes cited 8 as one that interprets 
John vi. of the Eucharist ; but upon slender presumptions, with- 
out any proof. Macarius also is made another voucher r , and 
with little or no colour for it. Ambrose is a third u : and yet 

P ' Ipse enim ait, caro mea vere est B Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, p. 

esca &c...Ipsius Domini professione, 385. It is argued, that Greg. Nys- 

et fide nostra, vere caro est, et vere sen must have understood John vi. of 

sanguis est : et haec accepta atque the Eucharist, because he made it a 

hausta id efEciunt, ut et nos in Chris- pledge of the resurrection ; which is 

to, et Christus in nobis sit. ' Ibid, no argument at all, as was observed 

sect. 14. p. 956. If any one wants to under Ignatius and Irenaeus. 

see the whole argument cleared and * Johnson, p. 385. Vid. Macar. 

vindicated, against such as hold the Orat. iv. p. 22. 

corporal presence, he may consult Al- N.B. Macarius may as reasonably 

bertine,p.4ii,&c.orBishopMoreton, be thought to interpret John iv. 14 

pp. 358-374, or Chamitr,p.648, &c. of the Eucharist, as John vi. in that 

i To Koivwvilv Sf Kaff fKa.<rr-t]v T?JJ/ place. It is absurd to imagine that 

ri/j.fpav, Kal'fiv rov ayiov he so interpreted either ; unless he 

ffia/jiaros Kal a'1/j.aros rov Xpiffrov, KO,- supposed Moses (whom he there men- 

\6v KOI ftrtixpt\ts' avrov ffa$>s \eyov- tions) to have received the Eucharist. 

TOS. 6 rpdiiycav fj.ov T^V <rdpKa, Kal u Johnson, ibid. Ambrose there 

irivtav /JLOV TO of,uo, !x C^V alt!>viov. plainly distinguishes the sacramental 

Basil. Epist. 289. bread from the bread mentioned in 

r Basil, in Psalm, xxxiij. 8. John vi. 

vi. according to John vi. 119 

neither does he speak home to the point, as every careful reader 
may soon see. I pass them over for the sake of brevity. 

Jerome interprets the heavenly bread of Christ himself, and 
calls it angels' food ; intimating thereby that it is eaten in 
heaven, but plainly teaching that it was eaten by the Patriarchs 
of old, and is now eaten, not only in the Eucharist, but in the 
sacrament of Baptism x . From all which it is evident that he 
interpreted John vi. of spiritual feeding at large. It is a mis- 
take to imagine y that he meant sacramental bread and wine, 
where he speaks of the wheat of which the heavenly bread is 
made, and of the wine which is Christ's blood z . All he intended 
was, that the wheat and the wine, mentioned in the prophecy 
of Isaiah, mystically pointed to the real flesh and blood of Christ; 
who is himself that wheat which makes the heavenly bread, ac- 
cording to his own allusion, where he resembles himself to wheat 
falling and bearing much fruit a . 

Chrysostom interprets John vi. 51 of Christ's natural body, 
not of the sacramental b . Elsewhere, distinguishing between the 
bread which is Christ, and the bread which Christ gives, he in- 
terprets the former of our Lord's Divine nature c : of the latter 
he offers a twofold construction, so as to comprehend both our 
Lord's own natural body, and any salutary doctrines, inasmuch as 
both of them strengthen the soul d . He takes notice that our 

x 'Panisquide caelo descend it cor- z "Triticum quoque de quo panis 

pus est Domini, et vinum quod disci- caelestis efficitur, illud est de quo lo- 

pulis dedit, sanguis illius est Novi quitur Doniinus, Caro mea vere est 

Testament! &c Nee Moyses dedit cibus : rursumque de vino, Et san- 

nobis panem verum, sed Dominus guis meus vere est potus.' Hieron. 

Jesus : ipse conviva et convivium, in Isa. c. Ixii. p. 462. 

ipse comedens et quod comeditur a John xii. 24. Compare Jerome 

Hunc panem et Jacob Patriarcha co- in Ose. c. vii. p. 1285. 

medere cupiebat, dicens, Si fuerit b 'firep rovrtav rb ffiiov Qtxfev 

Dornhius mecum, et dederit mihi af/ua, virtp rovriav T^I/ ff(payijv Kart- 

panem ad vescendum &c Quotquot 8f|oro. 6 yap &pros, <t>j]<rlt>, y ffdp 

enim in Christobaptizamur, Christum pov etrrlv, fy yd> Siaffw inrtp rrjs TOV 

induhnus, et panem comedimus an- KAff^ov fays. Chrysost. de Anathe- 

gelorum, et audimus Dominum pre- mate, torn. i. p. 692. ed Bened. 

cantem, meus cibus est, ut faciam' Cp. Horn. xlv. in Joan. p. 271. 

&c. Hieron. Hedibiae, torn. iv. pp. c Chrysost. in Joan. Horn. xliv. 

171, 172. ed. Bened. p. 264; cited above, p. 103. [note 8 .] 

y See Johnson's Unbloody Sacri- Cp. Horn. xlv. p. 270. 

fice, part i. p. 3/6. d "Aprov 5e ^TUJ ret 8<tyjuaTa \tyei 

I2O Spiritual Eating and Drinking, CHAP. 

Lord there speaks of spiritual food e , and that by the Eucha- 
ristical food we partake of the spiritual, and become really one 
with Christ f . The thought is the same with what we have seen 
in Hilary before cited : and it proves very evidently, that Chry- 
sostom did not understand the food spoken of in John vi. of the 
sacramental food, since he makes them as distinct as means and 
end, or as the instrumental cause and principal, while he supposes 
that by the due use of one we come at the other. I shall not now 
give myself the trouble of particularly examining every plea that 
has been offered, or every passage that has been alleged , to 
make Chrysostom appear favourable to another hypothesis. If 
the reader does but bear in mind the proper distinction between 
interpreting of the Eucharist, and applying a text or texts to the 
Eucharist, he will need no further solution. I shall only observe 
further, that no one of the later Fathers has better expressed 
the true and full meaning of our Lord in John vi., than 
Cyril of Alexandria has done, where he teaches, that ' no soul 
can ever attain to freedom from sin, or escape the tyranny of 
Satan, or arrive to the city above, but by participating of Christ, 
and of his philanthropy h ;' presently after quoting John vi. 53 
(together with John viii. 34) in proof of what he had said. 

Hitherto we have seen nothing in the Fathers that can be 
justly thought clear and determinate in favour of oral manduca- 
tion, as directly and primarily intended in John vi. Many, or 
most, of them have applied that general doctrine of spiritual 
feeding to the particular case of the Eucharist, because we are 
spiritually fed therein : but they have not interpreted that 
chapter directly of the Eucharist, because it has not one word 
of the outward signs or symbols of the spiritual food, but ab- 
stracts from all, and rests in the general doctrine of the use and 

IvravOa TO. fftaTfjpta, Kal rfy viffnv rrjs rpoQrjs yap TOVTO ylvtrcu, $s 

T^I* els aurir, ^ rb (T(afj.a rb eavrov. ix a P^ ffaro - Ibid. p. 272. 
aju^Ttpa yap vfvpoi rty tyvxTiv- Chry- s See Johnson's Unbloody Sacri- 

sost. in Joan. Horn. xlv. p. 370. fice, part i. p. 384. 

e Mefj.v7]Tai rpo<prjs wet^iaTi/cJjr. L Ei ^ 8ia rrjs Xpurrov fjKToxy* 

Ibid. p. 271. Hal <f>i\at>0ptairias &c. Cyrill. Alex- 

f M^J n&vov Kara r^v aydirriv ytvu' andr. Glaph. in Exod. ii. de Host. 

&AAa KUT' avrb rb irpayna, fls Agni, p. 267. 

vi. according to John vi. 121 

necessity of spiritual nutriment, the blood of Christ, in some shape 
or other, to everlasting salvation. Thus stood the case, both in 
the Greek and Latin churches, for the first four centuries, or 
somewhat more. But about the beginning of the fifth century 
arose some confusion. The frequent applying of John vi. to the 
Eucharist came at length to make many, among the Latins 
especially, interpret it directly of the Eucharist : and now some 
thought John vi. 53 as decisive a text for the necessity of the 
Eucharist, as John iii. 5 was for the necessity of Baptism. 
Hereupon ensued a common practice of giving the Communion 
to mere infants. Pope Innocent I. is believed to have been the 
first or principal man that brought up such doctrine of the 
necessity of communicating infants i : he was made Bishop of 
Borne A. D. 402. It appears very probable, that from the time 
of his Synodical Epistle, A. D. 417, the doctrine generally ran, 
in the Latin churches at least, that 'unless you receive the 
Eucharist, you have no life in you.' St. Austin is supposed 
to have construed the text in that way, especially from the time 
of Pope Innocent k . But in some places of his works he inter- 
prets that chapter, or some parts of it, with clearer and better 
judgment. Particularly in his Doctrina Christiana, lib. iii. 
cap. 1 6, quoted above 1 : and also in another work of his, where 
he plainly distinguishes the Sacrament of Christ's body from the 
spiritual food mentioned in John vi. m There are two noted 
passages of his, where he seems to interpret the living bread of 

! See Wall's Hist, of Infant Bap- 3. p. 167. But Thorndike disputes 

tism, part ii. ch. 9. p. 441, &c. 3rd it, [Epilog. p. 176, &c. De Jur. 

ed. Defence, pp. 36, 384. Bingham, Finiend. p. 285,] with some show of 

b. xv. c. 4. sect. 7. Compare Mr. reason. 

Pierce's Essay on Infant Communion, l See above, p. 91. [note h .] 
who carries it much higher than m 'Panis quotidianus aut pro iis 
others, upon suggestions which bear omnibus dictus est quae hujus vitae 
a plausible appearance, and are worth necessitatem sustentant, aut pro Sa- 
examining by some person of learn- cramento corporis Christi quod quo- 
ing and leisure. But in the mean- tidie accipimus, aut pro spiritual! 
while, I acquiesce in Dr. Wall's ac- cibo de quo idem Dominus dicit, 
count, as one that was well con- Ego sum panis,' &c. August, de 
sidered, and which, in my opinion, Sermone Domini in Monte, lib. ii. 
cannot be far from the truth. c. 7. Cp. de Civit. Dei, lib. xxi. 

k See Wall, ibid. pp. 441, 442, 443. c. 35, 
Vosgius, Hist. Pelag. lib. ii, part. 

122 Spiritual Eating and Drinking, CHAP. 

eating doctrine, of believing only n : but he only seems to do so, 
when he really does not. For he intends no more than this, 
that faith is the mean whereby we receive that living bread ; it 
is the qualification requisite for the reception of it. A man 
must have had faith to be healed, as we often read in the Gos- 
pels ; and healing certainly followed upon the faith of the person : 
and it might be right to say, Believe, and thou art healed : but 
yet faith and the cure following were not the same thing, but 
very distinct, both in nature and notion P. 

It may be proper to go on to Fulgentius of the next age, 
A. D. 507, a great admirer and follower of St. Austin, to see 
how this matter stood among the Africans in his time. He had 
a question put to him, upon a scruple raised from John vi. 53, 
concerning the case of such as having been baptized, happened 
to be prevented by death from receiving the holy Communion : 
and he determined that they were safe, because Baptism exhibits 
the body and blood of Christ to faithful recipients, as well as the 
Eucharist 9. He strengthens his determination of the case by 
the authority of St. Austin, in a long citation from him : and at 
length concludes, that receiving Baptism is receiving the body 
and blood of Christ, because it is receiving the thing signified in 
the other sacrament r . He certainly judged very right : and it 

n ' Quid paras dentes, et ven- Calvin. Institut. lib. iv. c. 17. p. 

trem ? Crede, et mandueasti. Ore- 280. 

dere enim in eum, hoc est manducare P Compare Johnson, Unbloody 

panem vivum.' August, in Joan. Sacrifice, part i. p. 377. 

tract. 25, 26. ' Augustinus hunc 1 ' In ipso lavacro sanctae re- 

cibum tripliciter interpretatur : vide- generations hoc fieri providebit. 

licet de propria Domini came,., in- Quid enim agitur sacramento sancti 

terdum etiam de Sacramento carnis Baptismatis, nisi ut credentes mem- 

hujus; nonnunquam de societate bra Domini nostri Jesu Christi fiant, 

fidelium.' Albertin. pp. 691, 699. et ad compagem corporis ejus eccle- 

'Non perspexit...ab Augustino siastica unitate pertineant ?...Tunc 

ipso, his verbis, fidem ut causam, incipit unusquisque particeps esse 

manducationem vero ipsam spiritua- illius unius panis, quando coeperit 

lem ut effectum inter se conferri et memor esse illius unius corporis,' 

collocari. Alioqui, si credere, et man- &c. 

ducare una et eadem res esset ex r ' Unumquemque fidelium cor- 

Augustini mente, quid hac oratione poris sanguinisque Dominici partici- 

fuerit ineptius ? Crede et manducasti, pern fieri, quando in Baptismate 

id est, manducaet manducasti.' Lamb, membruin esse illius corporis Christi 

Danaei Apolog. pro Helvet. Eccl. efficitur, nee alienari ab illo panis 

p. 1477. Opusc. ed. Genev. Cp. calicisve consortio, etiamsi antequam 

vi. according to John vi. 123 

is an instance to shew how plain good sense overruled, though it 
did not abolish, a wrong interpretation of John vi., and removed, 
in some measure, the uneasy scruples arising naturally from the 
then prevailing construction. The proper inference from Ful- 
gentius's wise and wary resolution of the case is, that John vi. 
ought not to be rigorously understood of any particular way of 
spiritual feeding, but simply of spiritual feeding, be it in what 
way soever : be it by Baptism, or by the Eucharist, or by any 
other sacraments, (as under the old law,) or by any kind of 
means which divine wisdom shall choose, or has in Scripture 

From this summary view of the ancients it may be observed, 
that they varied sometimes in their constructions of John vi. 
or of some parts of it : but what prevailed most, and was the 
general sentiment wherein they united, was, that Christ himself 
is properly and primarily our bread of life, considered as the 
Word made flesh, as God incarnate, and dying for us ; and that 
whatever else might, in a secondary sense, be called heavenly 
bread, (whether sacraments, or doctrines, or any holy service,) it 
was considered but as an antepast to the other, or as the same 
thing in the main, under a different form of expression. 

I shall here throw in a few words concerning the sentiments 
of moderns before I close this chapter. Albertinus s will furnish 
the reader with a competent list of Schoolmen, and others of 
the Roman communion, who have rejected the sacramental inter- 
pretation of John vi. A more summary account of the same 
may be seen in Archbishop Wake*, in the collection of pam- 
phlets written against Popery in a late reign. I know not 
whether the authorities of that kind may be looked upon as so 
many concessions from that quarter, (though the Romanists, 

panem ilium comedat, et calicem 270. in Joan. ix. 6. p. 602. 

bibat, de hoc saeculo in imitate cor- 8 Albertinus de Eucharistia, lib. i. 

poris Christi constitutus abscedat. c. 30. p. 209. 

Sacrament! quippe illius participa- * Discourse of the Eucharist, print- 

tione et beneficio non privatur, quan- ed in 1687, p. 20. He numbers up 

do ipse hoc quod illud sacramentum thirty in all, thus : two popes, four 

significat invenitur.' Fulgent, ibid, cardinals, two archbishops, five bi- 

pp. 227, 228. Cp. Cyrill. Alex- shops, the rest doctors and pro- 

andr. Glaphyr. in Exod. lib. ii. p. fessors. 

124 Spiritual Eating and Drinking, CHAP. 

generally, contend earnestly for the sacramental construction,) 
because there may be reasons why the more considering Ro- 
manists should think it prudent to give another construction, 
inasmuch as John vi., if interpreted directly of the Eucharist, 
would furnish a strong argument for infant communion, which 
they have long laid aside ; and it would be diametrically oppo- 
site to a noted principle of theirs, of denying the cup to the 
laity. I cannot say how far these two considerations may have 
inclined the shrewder men amongst them to reject what I call 
the sacramental construction of John vi. 

But the Reformers, in general, for very weighty reasons, have 
rejected the same : the Lutherans and Calvinists abroad, and our 
own most early and most considerable Divines, have concurred 
in discarding it. It would be tedious to enter into a particular 
recital of authorities ; and so I shall content myself with point- 
ing out two or three of the most eminent, who may justly be 
allowed to speak for the rest. Archbishop Cranmer stands at 
the head of them : he had considered that matter as closely 
perhaps as any man before or after him, and determined in the 
main as judiciously. He writes thus : 

' Whoe ever said or taught before this tyme, that the Sacra- 
ment was the cause why Christ said, Yf wee eat not the fleshe 
of the Sonne of man, wee have not lyfe in us? The spiritual 
eating of his flesh, and drincking of his bloud by faith, by 
digesting his death in our myndes, as our only pryce, raunsom, 
and redemption from eternal dampnation, is the cause wherfore 
Christe sayd, that If wee eat not his fleshe, and drincke not his 
bloud, we have not lyfe in us : and If wee eat his fleshe and 
drincke his bloud, wee have everlasting lyfe. And if Christ had 
never ordeyned the Sacrament, yet should wee have eaten his 
fleshe and dronken his bloud, and have had therby everlasting 
lyfe, as al the faithful dyd before the Sacrament was ordeyned, 
and doe daily, when thei receave not the Sacrament. . . . That 
in the vi. of John Christ spake nether of corporall nor sacra- 
mental eating of his fleshe, the tyme manifestly sheweth. For 
Christ spake of the same present tyme that was then, saying : 
The bread which I will give is my fleshe, &c. At whyche tyme 

vi. according to Jo/tn vi. 125 

the sacramental bread was not yet Christes fleshe : for the 
Sacrament was not yet ordeyned ; and yet at that tyme, all 
that beleved in Christ did eat his flesh and drincke his bloucl, or 
elles thei coulde not have dwelled in Christ, nor Christ in them". 

' This symilityde caused oure Saviour to say, My fleshe is very 
meate, and my bloud is very drynke. For there is no kynde of 
meate that is comfortable to the soule, but only the death of 
Christes blessed body ; nor no kynde of drynke that can quenche 
her thirst, but only the bloude sheddyng of our Saviour Christ 
which was shed for her offences x . 

' I mervail here not a litle of Mr Smith's either dulnes or 
maliciousnes, that cannot or will not see, that Christ in this 
chapter of St. John spake not of sacramental bread, but of 
heavenly bread ; nor of his flesh only, but also of his bloud, and 
of his Godhead, calling them heavenly bread that giveth ever- 
lasting life. So that he spake of himselfe wholly, saying, I am 
the bread of life, &c. And nether spake he of common bread, 
nor yet of sacramental bread, for nether of them was given 
upon the crosse for the lyfe of the world. And there can be 
nothing more manifest, than that in this sixth chapter of St. 
John, Christ spake not of the Sacrament of his flesh, but of 
his very flesh. And that as wel for that the Sacrament was 
not then instituted, as also because Christ said not in the future 
tense, The bread which I will give shall be my flesh, but in the 
present tense, The bread which I will give is my flesh : which 
sacramental bread was neither then his flesh, nor was then 
instituted for a sacrament, nor was after given for the life of 
the world. . . . When he said, The bread which I wil give is my 
flesh, &c., he meant nether of the materiall bread, nether of the 
accidents of bread, but of his own flesh : which although of itself 
it availeth nothinge, yet being in unity of Person joyned unto his 
Divinity, it is the same heavenly bread that he gave to death 
upon the crosse for the life of the world y.' 

u Archbishop Cranmer on the Sa- Jewel, Defence of Apology, p. 306, 

crament, p. 22. &c. Answer to Harding, pp. 78, 239, 

x Cranmer, p. 41. Cp. Calvin, in 240. Fryth, Answer to More, pp. 

Joan. vi. 54. 21, 27. 

y Cranmer, p. 450. Compare Bishop 

J26 Spiritual Eating and Drinking, CHAP. 

Thus far that excellent person has shewn, by convincing rea- 
sons drawn from the chapter itself, that John vi. ought not to be 
interpreted of the Eucharist. Nevertheless, he very well knew, 
and did not forget to observe, that it may properly be applied or 
accommodated to the Eucharist, and is of great weight and force 
for that very purpose. 

'As the bread is outwardlie eaten indeede in the Lordes 
Supper, so is the very body of Christ inwardly by faith eaten 
indede of all them that come thereto in such sorte as thei ought 
to doe ; which eating nourysheth them unto everlasting lyfe. 
And this eating hath a warrant signed by Christ himselfe in the 
vi. of John, where Christ saith, He that eateth my flesh, and 
drincketh my bloud, hath lyfe everlasting z . You be the first 
that ever excluded the wordes of Christe from his Supper. And 
St. Augustine mente, as well at the Supper, as at all other 
tymes, that the eating of Christes flesh is not to be understanded 
carnally with our teeth a ,' &c. 

The sum then of Archbishop Cranmer's doctrine on this head 
is : i. That John vi. is not to be interpreted of oral manducation 
in the Sacrament, nor of spiritual manducation as confined to the 
Eucharist, but of spiritual manducation at large, in that or any 
other sacrament, or out of the Sacraments. 2. That spiritual 
manducation, in that chapter, means the feeding upon Christ's 
death and passion, as the price of our redemption and salvation. 
3. That in so feeding we have a spiritual or mystical union with 
his human nature, and by that with his Godhead, to which his 
humanity is joined in an unity of Person. 4. That such spiritual 
manducation is a privilege belonging to the Eucharist, and 
therefore John vi. is not foreign to the Eucharist, but has such 
relation to it as the inward thing signified bears to the outward 

To Archbishop Cranmer I may subjoin Peter Martyr, who 
about ten years after engaged in the same cause, in a large 
Latin treatise printed A.D. 1562. No man has more clearly 
shewn, in few words, how far John vi. belongs not to the Eucha- 
rist, and how far it does. He considers the general principles 
z Cranmer, p. II. a Ibid. p. 35. 

vi. according to John vi. 127 

there taught as being preparatory to the institution of the 
Eucharist, which was to come after. Our Lord in that chapter 
gave intimation of spiritual food, with the use and necessity of 
it : afterwards, in the institution, he added external symbols, for 
the notifying one particular act or instance of spiritual mandu- 
cation, to make it the more solemn and the more affecting. 
Therefore John vi., though not directly spoken of the Eucharist, 
yet is by no means foreign, but rather looks forward towards it, 
bears a tacit allusion to it, and serves to reflect light upon it : 
for which reason the ancient Fathers are to be commended for 
connecting the account of inward grace with the outward sym- 
bols, the thing signified with the signs afterwards added, and 
so applying the discourse of that chapter to the case of the 
Eucharist b . 

From what has been observed of these two eminent Reformers, 
we may judge how John vi. was understood at that time : not of 
doctrines, nor of sacramental feeding, but of spiritual feeding at 
large, feeding upon the death and passion of Christ our Lord. 
This, I think, has been the prevailing construction of our own 
Divines all along : and though it has been much obscured of late 
(for half a century, perhaps, or more) by one or other hypothesis, 
yet has it never been lost , neither, I suppose, ever will be. 

b ' De sexto capite Joannis, an ad Imo Patres illos libenter recipimus, 
Eucharistiam pertineat, nos ita re- qui ilia verba ad hoc negotium tran- 
spondemus. Sermonem ibi de Sacra- stulerunt. Quid enira aliud sibi vo- 
mento coenae non institui ; ibi enim lunt panis et vinum, quae postea 
coena cum symbolis non ordinatur. addita sunt in coena, nisi ut magis 
Nam nee panis, nee calicis, nee gra- excitemur ad manducationem ilJam 
tiarum actionis, nee fractionis, nee corporis et sanguinis Domini, quae 
distributions, nee testamenti, nee multis verbis diligentissime tractata 
memoriae, nee annuntiationis mortis fuerat in sexto Joannis. Satis ergo 
Christimentio ullaeo loco instituitur. apparet quemadmodum nos ista con- 
Hue spectabant illi, qui dixerunt jungimus.' Petr. Mart. pp. 114, 115. 
illud caput ad Eucharistiam non per- Cp. Chamier, de Eucharist, lib. xi. 
tinere, &c. Quoniam res ipsa (id c. 3, &c. 

est, corporis et sanguinis Christi c Dean Fogg, in his excellent Com- 

spiritualis manducatio et potus) ibi pendium of Divinity, published A.D. 

luculenter traditur, ad quara postea 1712, has fully and distinctly ex- 

Evangelistae, adfinemhistoriaesuae, pressed the sense of John vi. in two 

declarant Christum adjunxisse sym- lines : 

bola externa panis et vini, idcirco ' Christus ibi loquitur, non de man- 

nos caput illud a Sacramento Eucha- ducatione sacramentali, sed spirituali, 

ristae non putamus esse alienum et de pane significato, non signifi- 

128 Spiritual Eating and Drinking, fyc. CHAP. 

A late very judicious Prelate of our Church, in a sermon on 
John vi. 53, has well expressed the sense of our Church in this 
matter, in the words here following : ' The body and blood of 
Christ are to be understood in such a sense as a soul can be 
supposed to feed upon a body, or to receive strength and 
nourishment by feeding upon it. But now the body of Christ 
can be no otherwise as food for the strengthening and refresh- 
ing our souls, than only as the spiritual benefits of that body 
and blood, that is to say, the virtue and effects of Christ's 
sacrifice upon the cross are communicated to it ; nor is the 
soul capable of receiving those benefits otherwise than by faith. 
So that the body and blood of Christ, in the sense of our 
Church, are only the benefits of Christ's passion ; that is to say, 
the pardon of sin, and the grace of the Holy Spirit, and a 
nearer union with Christ : and our eating and drinking of that 
body and blood, is our being partakers of those benefits ; and 
the mouth whereby we thus eat and drink, that is, the means 
whereby we are made partakers of those benefits, is our true 
and lively faith d .' This account is formed upon our Cate- 
chism, and upon the old principles of our first Reformers, and 
the next succeeding Divines, before any refined speculations 
came in to obscure or perplex a plain notion, and a very im- 
portant truth. All I have to observe further upon it, by way of 
explanation, is as follows : i . When the learned author says, 
that 'the soul is not capable of receiving those benefits other- 
wise than by faith,' I understand it of adult Christians, and of 
what they are ordinarily capable of : God may extraordinarily 
apply the benefits of Christ's passion wherever there is no moral 
obstacle, as he pleases. And it should be noted, that, properly 
speaking, we do not apply those benefits to ourselves, we only 
receive, or (by the help of God's grace) qualify ourselves for 
receiving : it is God that applies e , as it is als6 God that justifies ; 

cante.' Fogg. Theolog. Specul. Sche- instituted.' Wall, Inf. Bapt. part ii. 

ma, p. 309. c. 9. p. 448, 3rd ed. 

Dr. Wall says : * The words of our d Archbishop Sharp, vol. vii. serm. 

Saviour to the Jews, John vi. 53, do xv. p. 366. 

no way appear to belong to the sa- e ' Fides magis proprie dicitur ac- 

cramental eating, which was not then cipere et apprehendere, quam vel 

vn. Sacramental or Symbolical feeding \ 129 

and he does it ordinarily in and by the sacraments to persons 
fitly prepared. 2. When it is said, that the body and blood of 
Christ, in the sense of our Church, are only the benefits of Christ's 
passion, I so understand it, as not to exclude all reference to our 
Lord's glorified body now in heaven, with which we maintain a 
mystical union, and which is itself one of the benefits consequent 
upon our partaking of Christ's passion ; as seems to be intimated 
by the author himself, where he reckons a nearer union with 
Christ among the benefits. 3. The judicious author rightly makes 
faith to be the mouth only, by which we receive, not the meat or 
drink which we do receive ; the means only of spiritual nutri- 
ment, not the nutriment itself : for the nutriment itself is pardon 
and grace coming down from above, flowing from the spiritual 
and gracious presence of God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 
whose temple we are, while we are living members of Christ. 


Concerning Sacra/mental or Symbolical Feeding in the 

AFTER considering spiritual manducation by itself, inde- 
pendent of any particular modes, forms, or circumstances, it 
will next be proper to take a view of it, as set forth in a sensible 
way, with the additional garniture of signs and symbols. Under 
the Old Testament, besides the ordinary sacrifices, the manna 
and the waters of the rock were signs and symbols of spiritual 
manducation, according to St. Paul's doctrine, where he teaches, 
that the ancient Israelites 'did all eat the same spiritual meat, 
and did all drink the same spiritual drink f> which Christians 
do ; the same with ours as to the spiritual signification of it : so 
I understand the place, with many judicious interpreters, both 

polliceri, vel praestare. Sed verbum a multis Roman ensibus nobis objici- 

Dei et promissio cui fides innititur, tur, quasi crederemus hanc Christi 

non vero fides hominum, praesentia praesentiam et communicationem in. 

reddit quae promittit ; quernadmo- Sacramento, per nudam fiderutantum 

dum inter reforinatos et pontificios effici.' Cosin. Histor. Transubst. c. ii. 

aliquot consensum est in Collatione sect. 8. pp. 17, 18. 

Sangermani habita 1561. Male eniin f i Cor. x. 3,4. 


130 Sacramental or Symbolical CHAP. 

ancients? and moderns \ As the heavenly meat and drink of the 
true Israelites was Christ, according to the Apostle, and Christ 
also is ours, the Apostle must be understood to teach that they 
fed upon the same heavenly food that we do ; only by different 
symbols, and in a fainter light The symbols are there called 
spiritual meat and drink, that is, mystical ; for they signified the 
true food, which none but the true Israelites were fed with, 
while all received the signs. In the New Testament, the bread 
and wine of the Eucharist are the appointed symbols of the 
spiritual blessings, but under clearer and brighter manifesta- 
tions. For proof hereof we must look back to the original 
institution of the Sacrament, and particularly' to the words, 
' This is my body,' &c., and ' This is my blood,' &c. To under- 
take the exposition of them is entering into the most perplexed 
and intricate part of the whole subject ; made so by an odd 
series of incidents, in a long tract of time, and remaining as 
a standing monument of human infirmities : in consideration 
whereof, moderns, of all parties, may perhaps see reason not to 
bear themselves high above the ancients, in point of wisdom or 
sagacity. The plain obvious notion, which nobody almost could 
miss of for six or seven centuries, came at length to be obscured 
in dark ages, and by degrees to be almost totally lost. It was 
no very easy matter to recover it afterwards, or to clear off the 
mists at once. Contentions arose, even among the elucidators : 
and what was worst of all, after that in every scheme proposed, 
at the Reformation, some difficulties remained, which could not 
of a sudden be perfectly adjusted, there appeared at length some 
enterprising persons, who, either for shortening disputes, or for 
other causes, laboured to depreciate the Sacraments themselves, 
as if they were scarce worth the contending for : which was 
pushing matters to the most dangerous and pernicious extreme 
that could be invented. But I pass on. 

For the clearer apprehending what that plain and easy notion 

f Axistin, Bede, Bertram, and on the Sacrament. Mede, Discourse 

others. xliii. p. 325, &c. Bishop Moreton on 

h Besides commentators, see Arch- the Sacrament, book v. c. 2. sect. 3. 

bishop Cranmer on the Sacrament, p. 314. 
p. 86, &c. Bishop Jewel, Treatise 

viz. feeding in the Eucharist. 131 

was, which I just now spake of, I choose to begin with a famous 
passage of St. Bernard, often quoted in this subject, and very 
useful to give the readers a good general idea of the symbolical 
nature of the Sacraments. He compares them with instruments 
of investiture, (into lands, honours, dignities,) which are significant 
and emblematical of what they belong to, and are at the same 
time means of conveyance 1 . A book, a ring, a crosier, and the 
like, have often been made use of as instruments for such pur- 
pose. They are not without their significancy in the way of 
instructive emblem : but what is most considerable, they are 
instruments to convey those rights, privileges, honours, offices, 
possessions, which in silent language they point to. Those small 
gifts or pledges are as nothing in themselves, but they are highly 
valuable with respect to what they are pledges of, and what they 
legally and effectively convey : so it is with the signs and symbols 
of both Sacraments, and particularly with the elements of bread 
and wine in the Eucharist. They are, after consecration, called 
by the names of what they are pledges of, and are ordained to 
convey ; because they a*e, though not literally, yet in just con- 
struction and certain effect, (standing on Divine promise and 
Divine acceptance,) the very things which they are called, viz. 
the body and blood of Christ to all worthy receivers. In them- 
selves they are bread and wine from first to last : but while they 
are made use of in the holy service, they are considered, construed, 
understood, (pursuant to Divine law, promise, covenant,) as 
standing for what they represent and exhibit. Thus, frequently, 
in human affairs, things or persons are considered very differently 
from what they really are in themselves, by a kind of construction 
of law : and they are supposed to be, to all intents and pur- 
poses, and in full legal effect, what they are presumed to serve 
for, and to supply the place of. 

A deed of conveyance, or any like instrument under hand and 
seal, is not a real estate, but it conveys one ; and it is in effect 

1 'Variae sunt investiturae secun- rebus est, sic et divisiones gratiarum 
dum ea quibus investimur : verbi diversis sunt traditae sacramentis. ' 
gratia, investitur canoiiicus per li- Bernard, de Coen. Domini, serm. i. 
brum, abbas per baculum et annulum p. 145. 
simul : sicut, inquam, in ejusmodi 

K 2 

132 Sacramental or Symbolical CHAP. 

the estate itself, as the estate goes along with it ; and as the 
right, title, and property (which are real acquirements) are, as it 
were, bound up in it, and subsist by it k . If any person should 
seriously object, in such ja case, that he sees nothing but wax 
and parchments, and that he does not apprehend how they can 
be of any extraordinary value to him, or how he is made richer 
by them ; he might be pitied, I presume, for his unthinking 
ignorance or simplicity: but if, in a contrary extreme, he should 
be credulous enough to imagine, that the parchments themselves 
are really and literally the estate, are so many houses or tenements, 
or acres of glebe, inclosed in his cabinet, he could not well be 
presumed to be far short of distraction. I leave it to the intel- 
ligent reader, to make the application proper to the present 
subject. I have supposed, all the while, that the cases are so 
far parallel : but whether they really are so must now be the 
point of inquiry; for I am sensible that the thing is too im- 
portant to be taken for granted. 

Come we then directly to consider the words, ' This is my 
body,' and ' This is my blood.' What can they, or what do they 

1. They cannot mean, that this bread and this wine are really 
and literally that body in the same broken state as it hung upon 
the cross, and that blood which was spilled upon the ground 
1700 years ago. Neither yet can they mean that this bread 
and wine literally and properly are our Lord's glorified body, 
which is as far distant from us, as heaven is distant : all sense, 
all reason, all Scripture, all antiquity, and sound theology, reclaim 
against so wild a thought. 

2. Well then, since the words cannot be understood literally, 
or with utmost rigour, they must be brought under some figure 

k Our very judicious Hooker has as I make myself wholly theirs, so 

explained this matter much the same I give them in hand au actual pos- 

way, in these words, as spoken by session of all such saving grace as 

our Lord : my sacrificed body can yield, and as 

' This hallowed food, through the their souls do presently need: this 

concurrence of Divine power, is in is to them my body.' Hooker, vol. ii. 

verity and truth, unto faithful re- p. 337. Cp. Cosin. Histor. Tran- 

ceivers, Snstrumentally a cause of subst. pp. 57, 58. 
that mystical participation, whereby 

vn. feeding in the Eucharist. ,133 

or other, some softening explication, to make them both sense 
and truth. 

3. But there may be danger of undercommenting, as well as 
of interpreting too high : and men may recede so far from the 
letter as altogether to dilute the meaning, or break its force. 
As nothing but necessity can warrant us in going from the letter 
at all, we ought not to go further than such necessity requires. 
There appears to be something very solemn and awful in our 
Lord's pointed words, ' This is my body,' and ' This is niy blood.' 
Had he intended no more than a bare commemoration, or re- 
presentation, it might have been sufficient to have said, Eat this 
bread broken, and drink this wine poured out, in remembrance 
of me and my passion, without declaring in that strong manner 
that the bread and wine are his body and blood, at the same 
time commanding his Disciples to take them as such. We ought 
to look out for some as high and significant a meaning as the 
nature of the thing can admit of, in order to answer such em- 
phatical words and gestures. 

4. Some, receding from the letter, have supposed the words 
to mean, this bread and this wine are my body and blood in 
power and effect, or in virtue and energy : which is not much 
amiss, excepting that it seems to carry in it some obscure con- 
ception either of an inherent or infused virtue resting upon the 
bare elements, and operating as a mean, which is not the truth 
of the case ; excepting also, that it leaves us but a very dark 
and confused idea of what the Lord's body or blood means, in 
that way of speaking, whether natural or sacramental, or both 
in one. 

5. It appears more reasonable and more proper to say, that 
the bread and wine are the body and blood (viz. the natural 
body and blood) in just construction, put upon them by the law- 
giver himself, who has so appointed, and who is able to mak_e it 
good. The symbols are not the body in power and effect, if those 
words mean efficiency : but, suitable dispositions supposed in the 
recipient, the delivery of these symbols is, in construction of 
Gospel law, and in Divine intention, and therefore in certain 
effect or consequence, a delivery of the things signified. If God 

134 Sacramental or Symbolical CHAP. 

hath been pleased so to order that these outward elements, in 
the due use of the Eucharist, shall be imputed to us, and accepted 
by him, as pledges of the natural body of our Lord, and that 
this constructional intermingling his body and blood with ours, 
shall be the same thing in effect with our adhering inseparably to 
him, as members or parcels of him ; then those outward symbols 
are, though not literally, yet interpretatively, and to all saving 
purposes, that very body and blood which they so represent 
with effect : they are appointed instead of them \ 

This notion of the Sacrament, as it is both intelligible and 
reasonable, so is it likewise entirely consonant to Scripture 
language ; considered first in the general ; next, with respect to 
the Jewish sacrifices and sacraments ; then with regard also to 
Christian Baptism ; and lastly, with respect to what is elsewhere 
taught of the Eucharist. Further, it appears to have been the 
ancient notion of all the Christian churches for six centuries or 
more ; and was scarce so much as obscured, till very corrupt and 
ignorant ages came up; and was never totally lost, though 
almost swallowed up for a time by the prevailing growth of 
transubstantiation. These particulars I shall now endeavour to 
prove distinctly, in the same order as I have named them. 

i. I undertake to shew that the interpretation here given is 
favoured by the general style or phraseology of Scripture ; which 
abounds with examples of such figurative and constructional ex- 
pressions, where one thing is mentioned and another understood, 
according to the way which I have before intimated. I do not 
here refer to such instances as are often produced in this subject ; 
as metaphorical locutions, when our Lord is styled a door, a vine, 
a star, a sun, a rock, a lamb, a lion, or the like ; which amount 
only to so many similitudes couched, every one respectively, 
under a single word. Neither do I point to other well known 
instances, of seven kine being seven years, and four great beasts 
being four kings, and the field being the world, reapers being 
angels, and the like : which appertain only to visional or para- 
bolical representations, and come not up to the point in hand. 

1 Tb irorhpiw tv raftt a"fj.aros {jytia-Qat is the phrase of Victor Antioche- 
nus, who wrote about A.D. 401. Vid. Albertin. p. 832. 

vii. feeding in the Eucharist. 135 

The examples which we are to seek for, as similar and parallel 
to the expressions made use of by our Lord in the institution, 
must be those wherein some real thing is in just construction 
and certain effect allowed to be another thing. 

Moses was a God to Pharaoh m , not literally, but in effect. 
The walking tabernacle, or moving ark, being a symbol of the 
Divine presence, was considered as God walking 11 among his 
people. Faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness , or 
sinless perfection ; not that it strictly or literally was so, but it 
was so accepted in God's account. John the Baptist was Elias P, 
not literally, but in just construction. Man and wife are one 
flesh 9, not in the utmost strictness of speech, but interpretatively, 
or in effect ; they are considered as one. He that is joined to 
an harlot is one body r , not literally, but in construction of Divine 
law : and he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit 8 , is con- 
sidered as so, and with real effect. The Church is our Lord's 
body*, interpretatively so. Levi paid tithes in Abraham, not 
literally, but constructionally, or as one may say u . Abraham 
received his son Isaac from the dead, not really, but in just 
construction, and in a figure x . The Apostle tells his new 
converts, 'Ye are our epistle,' and the 'epistle of Christy;' 
that is to say, instead of an epistle, or equivalent thereto, the 
same thing in effect or use. These examples may suffice to 
shew, in the general, that Scripture is no stranger to the sym- 
bolical or constructional language, expressing one thing by another 
thing, considered as equivalent thereto, and amounting to the 
same as to real effects or purposes. 

2. This will appear still plainer from the sacrificial language 
and usage in the Old Testament. Blood, in sacrificial language, 
was the life of an animal : and the shedding the blood for sacri- 
fice, together with the sprinkling it, were understood to be giving 

m Exod. vii. I. r I Cor. vi. 16. 

11 Levit. xxvi 11,12. Deut. xxiii. s Ibid. 17. 
14. ' Ephes. i. 23. See Spinkes against 

Gen. xv. 6. Rom. iv. 3, 9, 22. Transubstant. pp. 29, 30. 
Gal. iii. 6. u Hebr. vii. 9. 

P Matt. xvii. 12. Mark ix. 13. x Hebr. xi. 19. 

1 I Cor. vi. 16. T i Cor. iii. 2, 3. 

Sacramental or Symbolical CHAP. 

life for life z . The fumes of some sacrifices were considered as 
sweet odours a , grateful to God when sent up with a pure mind. 
The altar was considered as God's table 13 : and what was offered 
upon it, and consumed by fire, was construed and accepted as 
God's meat, bread, food, portion, or mess c . Not that it was 
literally so, but it was all one to the supplicants ; with whom 
God dealt as kindly, as if it had really been so : it was the same 
thing in legal account, was symbolically the same, and therefore 
so named. The laying hands upon the head of the victim was, 
in construction of Divine law, transferring the legal offences upon 
the victim* 1 : more particularly, the people's performing that 
ceremony towards the scape-goat was considered as laying their 
iniquities upon him, which accordingly the goat was supposed to 
bear away with him e ; all which was true in legal account. The 
priests, in eating the sin offering of the people, were considered 
as eating up their guilt, incorporating it with themselves, and 
discharging the people of it f : and the effect answered. But 
when the people feasted on the peace offerings, it was symboli- 
cally eating peace, and maintaining amity with God : to which 
St. Paul alludes in a noted passage g, to be explained hereafter. 
From hence it may be observed, by the way, that symbolical 
phrases and symbolical services were what the Jews had been 
much and long used to, before our Lord's time : which may be 
one reason why the Apostles shewed no surprise at what was 
said to them in the institution of the Eucharist, nor called for 
any explanation. 

From the Jewish sacrifices, we may pass on to their sacra- 
ments, which, taking the word in a large sense, were many, but 
in the stricter sense were but two, namely, Circumcision and the 
Passover. With respect to those also, the like figurative and 
symbolical language prevailed. We find St. Paul declaring of 
the manna and of the waters of old, that they were spiritual 

1 Gen. ix. 4. Levit. xvii. 10, n. Numb, xxviii. 2, 24. Ezek. xliv. 7. 

a Gen. viii. *i. Exod. xxix. 18, d Levit. i. 4; viii. 14, 15. 
et passim. e Levit. xvi. 11, 11. 

b Ezek. xli. 22 ; xliv. 16. Mai. i. f Levit. x. 17. Hos. iv. 8. 
7, 12. s i Cor. x. 18. Compare Levit. 

c Levit. iii. n ; xxi. 6, 8, 17, 21, 22. vii. 1 8, and Ainsworth in loc. 

vii. feeding in the Eucharist. 137 

food ; and accordingly he does not scruple, while speaking of the 
rock from whence the waters flowed, to say that ' that rock was 
Christ V It typified Christ : yea and more than so, the waters 
which it yielded, typified the blood and water which should 
afterwards flow from our Lord's side, and were to the faithful of 
that time spiritual pledges of the benefits of Christ's passion, 
like as the sacramental wine is now 1 . This consideration fully 
accounts for the strong expression which the Apostle in that 
case made use of, ' that rock was Christ :' it was so in effect to 
every true Israelite of that time. 

Circumcision of the flesh was a symbolical rite, betokening the 
true circumcision of the heart ; which was the condition of the 
covenant between God and his people, on their part k , and God's 
acceptance of the same on his part 1 , to all saving purposes : 
therefore circumcision had the name of covenant, and the sign 
was called what it literally was not, but what it really and truly 
signified, and to the faithful exhibited 111 . 

The like may be observed of the Passover, which was feasting 
upon a lamb, but was called the Lord's Passover, as looking 
backwards, plainly, to the angel's passing over the Hebrews, so 
as to preserve them from the plague n then inflicted on the 
Egyptians, and mystically looking forwards to God's passing over 
the sins of mankind, for the sake of Christ the true paschal 
lamb . Such is the customary language of Scripture in those 
cases, denominating the signs by the things signified, and at the 
same time exhibited in a qualified sense. 

3. I proceed to the consideration of Baptism, a sacrament of 
the New Testament ; a symbolical rite, full of figure and mys- 
tery; representing divers graces, blessings, privileges, and ex- 
hibiting the same in the very act : for which reason the Scrip- 
ture language concerning it is very strong and emphatical, like 
to what our Lord made use of with respect to the Eucharist. 
St. Paul does not barely intimate that we ought to be buried 
with Christ in Baptism, or that we signify his burial, but he says 

h i Cor. x. 4. i Gen. xvii. 7. 

' See above, p. 129. m Gen. xvii. 10, 13, 14. 

k Deut. x. 16; xxx. 6. Levit.xxvi. n Exod. xii. u, 13, 13. 

41. Jerem. iv. 4. Rom. ii. 28, 29. i Cor. v. 7. 

138 Sacramental or Symbolical CHAP. 

plainly, ' we are buried ; ' and likewise that ' we have been planted 
together in the likeness of his death/ and that ' our old man is 
crucified,' and that we are ' freed from sin,' and ' dead with 
Christ P.' The reason is, because the things there mentioned are 
not merely represented, but effectuated always on God's part, if 
there be no failure or obstacle on ours. The spiritual graces of 
Baptism go along with the ceremony, in the due use of it, and 
are supposed by the Apostle to be conveyed at that instant. 
i. Actual remission of sinsi. 2. Present sanctification of the 
Spirit 1 ". 3. Actual communion with Christ's body, with Christ 
our head 3 . 4. A certain title, for the time being, to resurrection 
and salvation*. 5. A putting on Christ u . I take the more 
notice here of the last article of putting on Christ, as being of 
near affinity with feeding upon Christ in the other sacrament. 
Both of them express a near conjunction and close intimacy : 
but the latter is the stronger figure, and the more affecting 
emblem. Christ is, in a qualified sense, our clothing, and our 
food ; our baptismal garment, and our eucharistical banquet : 
but what enters within us, and is diffused all over us, and 
becomes incorporate with us, being considered as a symbol of 
Christ, expresses the most intimate union and coalition imagin- 
able. Probably this symbol was made choice of for the Eucha- 
rist, as it is the top perfection of Christian worship or service. 
Baptism is for babes in Christ, this for grown men : Baptism 
initiates, while the Eucharist perfects : Baptism begins the 
spiritual life, the Eucharist carries on and finishes it. And there- 
fore it is that the Eucharist has so frequently been called TO 

P Rom. vi. 4, 6, 7, 8. 'Deipsobap- 8 I Cor. xii. 13. 

tismo Apostolua, Consepulti, inquit, * Rom. vi. 8, 9. Tit. iii. 5. i Pet. 

sumus Christo per baptismum in mor- iii. 21. Coloss. ii. n, 12, 13. Add 

tern. Non ait sepulturam significavi- I Cor. xv. 29. For so I understand 

mus, sed prorsus ait, consepulti su- ' baptizing for the dead ;' in order to 

mus : sacrameutum ergo tantae rei have our dead bodies raised. Vid. 

non nisi ejusdem rei vocabulo nuncu- Chrysost. in i Cor. x. Horn, xxiii. 

pavit.' August. Ep. 98. ad Boni- p. 389 ; et in i Cor. xv. 29. Horn. xl. 

fac. p. 268. ed. Bened. p. 513. ed. Sav. Isidor. Pelus. Epist. 

i Acts xxii. 16 ; ii. 38. Coloss. ii. lib. i. Ep. 221. Theodorit. in i Cor. 

13. i Cor. vi. ii. xv. 29. 

r John iii. 5. Acts ii. 38. I Cor. u Gal. iii. 27. Cp. Wolfius in loc. 

xii. 13; vi. ii. Ephes. v. i6. Tit. iii. Deylingius, Obs. Sacr. torn. iii. p. 

5. Heb. x. 22. 330. 

vii. feeding in the Eucharist. 139 

x , the perfecting service, and the Sacrament of sacraments y ; 
or emphatically the Sacrament, which obtains at this day. I may 
add that, though Baptism represents the burial and the resurrection 
of our Lord, and entitles us to a partnership in both, yet there 
is something still more awful and venerable in representing (not 
merely his acts or offices, but) his very Person, in part, which 
is done in the Eucharist, by the symbols of bread and wine, 
representing his body and blood. 

From what hath been said under this last article concerning 
Baptism, we may observe, that it is not literally going into the 
grave with Christ, neither is it literally rising from the dead 
with him ; but it is so interpretatively and in certain effect, 
proper dispositions supposed on our part : and it is not barely a 
representation of a thing, but a real exhibition. So likewise in 
the Eucharist : the elements are not literally what they are called, 
but they are interpretatively and in effect the same thing with 
what they stand for. Such appears to be the true account of 
the symbolical phrases of the institution. 

4. To this agrees what we meet with further in St. Paul's 
account of this Sacrament. It is the Communion of the body 
and blood of Christ z . Which expresses communication on the 
part of the donor, and participation on the side of the receiver. 
There is communication from God, and a participation by us, 
of Christ's crucified body directly, and of the body glorified con- 
sequentially. Yet this grant and this reception of our- Lord's 
body are not to be understood with utmost rigour, but after the 
manner of symbolical grants and conveyances ; where the sym- 
bols are construed to be, in real and beneficial effect, what they 
supply the place of. But of this text I may have occasion to 
say more in a distinct chapter, and so may dismiss it for the 

x Vid. Casaub. Exercit. xvi. n. 48. guinis Christi in coena Dominica : 

p. 411, alias 573. Suicer. Thesaur. nullus enim restat alius modus, quo 

torn. ii. p. I2J9. in terns versantes arctius cum 

' Conjunctions nostrae cum Christo, Christo, capite nostro, conjungamur.' 

cujus instrumenta sunt verbum Dei Casaub. ibid. 

et sacramenta, veluti colophonem im- * Tektruv T*A.T^. Pseudo-Dionys. 

pouit participatio corpora et san- cap. iii. p. 282. * i Cor. x. 16. 

Sacramental or Symbolical CHAP. 

St. Paul, in the same Epistle, speaks of the unworthy receiver, 
as ' guilty of the body and blood of the Lord,' and as ' eating 
and drinking damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's 
body a :' all which is easily and naturally accounted for, upon 
the principles before mentioned. Our Lord's body is interpre- 
tatively delivered, with all the emoluments thereunto pertaining, 
to as many as receive worthily: the same body is interpreta- 
tively offered b to as many as receive, though ever so unworthily. 
The unworthy receiver, through his own fault, disqualifies him- 
Belf from partaking of what is offered, namely, from partaking of 
the things signified : which being our Lord's own body and blood, 
he is therefore guilty, not only of profaning holy things, (as 
even the symbols themselves, when consecrated, are holy,) but 
also of slighting and contemning our Lord's own body and blood, 
which had been symbolically offered to him c . He incurs the 
just judgment of God, for not discerning, that is, not esteeming, 
not reverencing, not receiving d the Lord's body when he might, 
and when both duty and interest required his most grateful 
and most devout acceptance. Nay further, he is guilty of con- 
temning the blood of the covenant, and the author of our salvation, 
by so profane an use of what so nearly concerns both. This must 

a I Cor. xi. 27, 29. both being equally a neglect of the 

b 'Credentibus fit corpus vivificum, same thing. There must be more 

quia illi panis caelestia et corporis in unworthy reception : it is not 

Christi vere sunt participes : aliis merely neglecting the inward grace, 

vere tarn nnn recipientibus quam but it is profaning also the outward 

non credentibus licet antitypon sit, means. 

tamen illis nequaquam est, nee fit d The wicked receive the signs of 

corpus Christi.' Cosin. Histor. Eccl. the Lord's body and blood, not the 

p. 69. body and blood ; that is, not the 

c 'Non idcirco vocat Paulus reos thing signified. So the Fathers dis- 

quod ipsum corpus Christi ederint, tinguish commonly on this bead, 

neque idcirco illi judicium sibi arces- The testimonies of Origen, Ambrose, 

sunt quod sumpserint, sed quod su- Jerome, Chrysostom, Austin, and 

mere corpus Domini neglexerint.' others, may be seen collected and 

Lamb. Danaeus Apolog. pro Helvet. explained in Albertinu*, pp. 549, 

Eccl. p. 30, alias 1479. 586. Sometimes the Fathers do in- 

N. B. This account is right as to deed speak less accurately, of the 

fact, that the unworthy do not re- unworthy receiving the body and 

ceive the Body, but as to guilt in blood, meaning the outward symbols, 

approaching the holy table, it is giving the name of the thing signi- 

insufficient ; because, by this account, fied to the signs, by a metonymy, 

there would be no difference between Compare Moreton, p. 320. 
absenting, and unworthy receiving ; 

vi i. feeding in the Eucharist. 141 

be so, in the very nature of the thing, if we suppose (as we here 
do) that the sacramental symbols are interpretatively, or in just 
construction, by Divine appointment, the body and blood of 
Christ. But this point also must be more minutely considered 
in its proper place. 

5. I proceed, in the last place, to examine the sentiments of 
the ancients on this head : and if they fall in with the account 
here given, we can then want nothing to set this matter in the 
clearest light, or to fix it beyond all reasonable dispute. 

A. D. 107. Ignatius. 

Ignatius, occasionally reflecting on some persons who rejected 
the use of the Eucharist, delivers his mind as here follows : 
'They abstain from the Eucharist and prayer, because they 
admit not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ 
which suffered for our sins, and which the Father of his good- 
ness raised from the dead : they therefore thus gainsaying the 
gift of God, die in their disputes e .' It is to be noted, that those 
misbelievers (probably the old visionaries, in Greek Docetae) 
did not allow that our Lord had any real flesh or blood, con- 
ceiving that his birth, passion, and resurrection were all ima- 
ginary, were mere show and appearance. Thereupon they rejected 
the Eucharist and the prayers thereto belonging, as founded 
in the doctrine of our Lord's real humanity. Now, Ignatius 
here intimates that the elements of bread and wine in the 
Eucharist are, in just construction, the body, or flesh and blood 
of Christ as dying, and as raised again : therefore he bore 
about him a real body. The Eucharist being representative, and 
also iuterpretatively exhibitive of such real flesh and blood, was 
itself a standing memorial of the truth of the Church's doctrine 
concerning our Lord's real humanity. Ignatius could not ima- 
gine that the symbols were literally flesh and blood ; no one was 
then weak enough to entertain so wild a thought : but if they 

e E&XOpurrfaf KCU irpoo-fvxris air- iroT'Jjp frytiptv' ol olv a.vri\4yovrts Tp 

ixovrai, Sia -rb /j.}) 6fj.o\ojf7v tv\a.p- Scapta rov eov, ffv^rjrovvrts airodvl)* 

iffriav ffdpKa elvat TOV ffarrrjpos TJ/UWC ffxovffi. Ignat. ad Smyrn. cap. 7. 

'ITJCTOV Xptorov, TTJV vitfp auapriiov Vid. Albertin. p. 286, &c. 
T,p.;jiiv iraOovffco', *<)v rfj \pi\ff-r6rriri A 

143 Sacramental or Symbolical CHAP. 

were constructionally or interpretatively so, it was sufficient, being 
all that his argument required. The Eucharist, so understood, 
supposed a real body of flesh and blood belonging to our blessed 
Lord, both as dying and rising again : for, without that suppo- 
sition, the Eucharist was no Eucharist at all, a representation of 
nothing, or a false representation f ; and that the misbelievers 
themselves were very sensible of, and therefore abstained from 
it. I may further observe, that Ignatius here supposes not, with 
the consubstantiators, a natural body of Christ locally present, 
and a sacramental one besides ; but it is all one symbolical body 
in the Eucharist, supplying the place of the natural, in real 
effect, and to all saving purposes. The Eucharist, that is, the 
bread and wine, is (constructionally) the flesh of Jesus, &c. It 
is not said, that it is with the flesh, or that one is in, with, or 
under the other : so that Mr. Pfaffius had no occasion to triumph 
here ?. 

That Ignatius admitted of real and beneficial effects will be 
plain from another passage : ' Breaking one bread, which is the 
medicine of immortality, a preservative that we should not die, 
but should live for ever in Jesus Christ V In what sense he 
understood the thing so to be, will appear more fully when we 
come to other Fathers, somewhat later in the same century. There 
is one place more of this apostolical writer worth the reciting: 

1 Chrysostom's reasoning, in like beyond all reasonable dispute ; as 

case, is here very apposite, in Matt, every impartial reader will find, who 

Horn. liii. p. 783. Ei y&p ^ air- will but be at the pains to look into 

(Qavm & 'Irjffovs, rivos ovn&o\a TCI him, p. 286, &c. 

rf\ov/j.fifa ; ' If Jesus did not really h "Eva &prov KAwiTts, 'As fort <f>dp- 

die, what are the eucharistical ele- JUCUCOP aOavcurias, avriSoros TOV ^ 

ments symbols of?' N. B. The argu- axoBavfiv, oAAa 77 v in 'Irja-ot! Xpurrf 

ment did not require or suppose a 8ia ira.vr6s. Ignat. ad. Ephes. cap. 

corporal presence : a symbolical one 20. This was no flight, but the 

was sufficient to confute the gain- standing doctrine of the author, 

sayers, if Chrysostom had any judg- which he expresses without any 

ment. Cp. Pseud. Origen. Dialog, figure elsewhere. Epist. ad Sinyrn. 

contr. Marcion, p. 853. cap. 7 : ffvvfQfpfv 8e avrots aycurav, 

e Pfaffius (p. 263) appears to tri- Iva. KCU cuxtfaaiv. ' It behoves them 

umph over Albertinus, with respect to celebrate the feast of the Eucha- 

to this passage of Ignatius : but Al- rist, (so I understand aycarav, with 

bertinus had very justly explained it, Cotelerius in loc.), that they may 

and defended his explication with rise to life.' 
great learning and solid judgment, 

vii. feeding in the Eucharist. 143 

' The flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ is but one, and the cup one 
unto the unity of his blood'.' He alluded, probably, to i Cor. 
x. 1 6, ' communion of the blood of Christ,' and so the meaning is, 
for the uniting us to Christ, first, and then, in and through him, 
to one another, his one blood being the cement which binds head 
and members all together. 

A. D. 140. Justin Martyr. 

Justin, another early Christian teacher and martyr, comes 
next : I shall cite as much from him as may suffice to clear the 
point in hand. ' This food we call the Eucharist : which no 
one is allowed to partake of, but he that believes our doctrines to 
be true, and who has been baptized in the laver of regeneration 
for remission of sins, and lives up to what Christ has taught. 
For we take not these as common bread and common drink : but 
like as Jesus Christ our Saviour, being incarnate by the Word 
of God, bore about him both flesh and blood for our salvation ; 
so are we taught that this food which is blessed by the prayer of 
the Word that came from him [God], and which is changed 
into the nourishment of our flesh and blood, is the flesh and 
blood of the incarnate Jesus. For the Apostles in their com- 
mentaries, called the Gospels, have left it upon record, that Jesus 
so commanded them ; for he took bread, and when he had given 
thanks, he said, Do this in remembrance of me ; this is my 
body : in like manner also he took the cup, and when he had 
given thanks, he said, This is my blood k .' Upon this passage of 
Justin may be observed as follows : i. That he supposed the 
elements to be blessed or sanctified by virtue of the prayer of the 
Word or Logos, first made use of in the institution, and remain- 
ing in force to this day, in such a sense as I have explained above, 
in the chapter of Consecration. 2. That Justin also supposed 
the same elements, after consecration, to continue still bread 
and wine, only not common bread and wine : for while he says, 

1 Mlo 7&p fopl TO" Kvptov r)/j.eav k Justin Martyr. Apol. i. pp. 96, 

'iTjcroG XpiiTToD, /cal v irorrjpiov eis 97. ed. Lond. See also above, chap. 

tvoKTiv rov atuaros avrov. Ignat. ad iii. p. 503, where part of the same 

Philad. cap. 4. passage is cited for another purpose. 

144 Sacramental or Symbolical CHAP. 

it is not common bread, he supposes it to be bread. 3. That while 
he supposes the consecrated elements to be changed into our 
bodily nutriment, he could not have a thought of our Lord's 
natural body's admitting such a change. 4. That nevertheless he 
does maintain that such consecrated food is, in some sense or 
other, the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus ; and he quotes 
the words of the institution to prove it. 5. He supposes no 
other flesh and blood locally present in the Eucharist, but that 
very consecrated food which he speaks of; for that is the flesh 
and blood. Therefore he affords no colour for imagining two 
bodies, natural and sacramental, as locally present together, in 
the way of consubstantiation. 6. It remains then, that he could 
mean nothing else but the representative or symbolical body of 
Christ, answering to the natural, (once upon the cross, and now 
in heaven,) as proxies answer to their principals, as authentic 
copies or exemplifications to their originals, in use, value, and 
legal effect. For, that Justin cannot be understood of a bare 
figure, or naked representation, appears from hence, that he sup- 
poses a Divine power, the power of the Logos himself, (which 
implies his spiritual presence,) to be necessary for making the 
elements become such symbolical flesh and blood : whereas, if it 
were only a figure, or representation, men might easily make it 
themselves by their own power, and would need only the original 
commission to warrant their doing it. 7- Though Justin (ad- 
dressing himself to Jews or Pagans) does not speak so plainly of 
the great Christian privileges or graces conferred in the Eucharist, 
as Ignatius, writing to Christians, before him did, yet he has 
tacitly insinuated the same things ; as well by mentioning 
the previous qualifications requisite for it, as also by observing 
that the [symbolical] flesh and blood of Christ are incorporate with 
ours : from whence by just inference all the rest follows, as every 
grace is implied in such our interpretative union with Christ 
crucified or glorified. Besides that our author supposed, as I 
before noted, a real spiritual presence of the Divine nature of 
our Lord in or with the elements, to make them effectually the 
body and blood of Christ : and he carries it so high, as to draw 
a comparison from the presence of the Logos to our Lord's 

vii. feeding in the Eucharist. 145 

humanity, whereof the Eucharist is a kind of emblem, though in 
a loose general way, faint and imperfect 1 . Thus much however 
is common to both : that there is a presence of the Logos with 
something corporeal ; a presence with something considered 
his body ; and a presence operating in conjunction with that 
body for the uniting all his true members together under him 
their head. But that such comparisons help to clear the subject 
is more than I will say ; being sensible that they are far from 
exact, and may want distinctions to make them bear, or other- 
wise may be apt to mislead : it is enough, if we can but come at 
the true and full sense of the authors. 

A.D. 176. Irenaeus. 

Irenaeus's doctrine of the Eucharist, so far as concerns this 
present chapter, may be understood from the passages here fol- 
lowing, together with some explanatory remarks which I mean 
to add to them. 

' How can they say that the flesh goes to corruption, and never 
more partakes of life, when it is fed with the body of our Lord, 
and with his blood 1 . . As the terrestrial bread upon receiving the 
invocation of God is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, 
consisting of two things, terrestrial and celestial ; so also our 
bodies, upon receiving the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, 
having an assurance of a resurrection to all eternity m .' ' But if 
this flesh of ours has no title to salvation, then neither did our 
Lord redeem us with his own blood, nor is the cup of the Eucha- 
rist the communion [communication] of his blood, nor the bread 
which we break the communion [communication] of his body. 
For it is not blood, if it is not of the veins and flesh, and what- 

1 See the Doctrinal Use of the eof, owe trt Kotvbs &pro$ itrrlv, dAA' 

Sacraments considered, vol. v. p. tvxapKrria, /c Svo irpayfidruii' trvvea- 

114. rrjKvia, tiriyfiov re Kal ovpaviov OVTWS 

m Tlios r^v ffdpKa \4yovffiv tls <f>6o- Kal ra (ru/f-MTa TtfuSiv /j.eTa\an/3di>orTa 

pav xvpw, /cat (*fy fjitrx ftv T '}* C o '*} s T *)s fvxapurrias fj.f]Keri flfai <p6apT&, 

TTJV axb TOV <Tta/j.aTos roii Kvpiov Kal T^V t\tri$a rrjs tls aioovas avaffrdo-eus 

rov a'lfj.aros aurov Tpetyofj.fvrjj' ; .... $x ovra - Iren. lib. iv. cap. 1 8. p. 251. 

els yctp airb yfis &pros irpocr\ ed. Bened. 
6fj.tvos HKK\T)(TU> [forte MK\rj(ni>] TOV 

146 Sacramental or Symbolical CHAP. 

ever else makes up the substance of the human frame, such as 
the Word was really made n .' A little after, the author adds 
this large explanatory passage, worth the noting : ' The crea- 
ture of the cup he declared to be his own blood, with which he 
imbues our blood ; and the creature of bread he affirmed to be 
his own body, out of which our bodies grow up. When there- 
fore the mingled cup and the created bread receive the Word of 
God, and the Eucharist becomes Christ's body, and by these the 
substance of our flesh grows and consists, how can they say, that 
the flesh is not capable of the gift of God, (namely, life eternal,) 
when it is fed with the body and blood of Christ, and is member 
of him 1 To this purpose speaks St. Paul in his Epistle to the 
Ephesians, that we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of 
his bones, Ephes. v. 30. . . . The flesh is nourished by the cup 
which is his blood, and is increased by the bread which is his 
body. And like as a branch of the vine put into the ground 
brings forth fruit in its season, and a grain of wheat falling into 
the ground and there dissolved, riseth again with manifest in- 
crease, by the Spirit of God that containeth all things ; and 
those afterwards by Divine wisdom serve for the use of man, 
and receiving the Logos [Word] of God, become the Eucharist, 
which is the body and blood of Christ : so also our bodies being 
fed by it, [viz. the Eucharist,] and laid in the ground, and dis- 
solving there, shall yet arise in their season, by means of the 
Divine Logos vouchsafing them a resurrection to the glory of 
God the Father / 

From these several passages thus laid together, I take the 
liberty to observe : i. That our author had no notion of the 
elements being changed, upon consecration, into the natural body 
of Christ ; for he supposes them still to remain as the earthly 
part, and to be converted into bodily nutriment ; which to affirm 
of our Lord's body, crucified or glorified, would be infinitely 

n 'Si autem non salvetur haec Sanguis enim non est nisi a venis et 

[caro], videlicet nee Dominus san- carnibus, et a reliqua quae secundum 

guine suo redemit nos, neque calix hominem est substantia, qua vere 

Eucharistiae communicatio sanguinis factum est Verbum Dei.' Iren. lib. 

ejus est, neque panis quern fran<ji- v. cap. 2. p. 293. 
mus communicatio corporis ejus est. Iren. lib. v. p. 294. 

vii. feeding in the Eucharist. 147 

absurd P. 2. Neither does our author at all favour the notion of 
Christ's natural body being literally and locally present under or 
with the elements : for the heavenly thing supposed to super- 
vened in the consecration, and to be present, is not Christ's 
natural body, but the Logos, or Divine nature of our Lord, or 
the Holy Spirit. Or if he did suppose the heavenly thing to be 
Christ's glorified body, yet even that amounts to no more 
than saying that our mystical union with his body is made or 
strengthened in the Eucharist; not by any local presence of that 
body, but as our mystical union with all the true members is 
therein perfected, at whatever distance they are : so that whether 
we interpret the heavenly part of the Logos, or of the body of 
Christ, Irenaeus will not be found to favour the Lutheran notion 
of the presence. 3. But least of all does he favour the figurists 
or memorialists ; for his doctrine runs directly counter to them 
almost in every line. He asserts over and over, that Christ's 
body and blood are eaten and drank in the Eucharist, and our 
bodies thereby fed ; and not only so, but insured thereby for 
a happy resurrection : and the reason he gives is, that our 
bodies are thereby made or continued members of Christ's 
body, flesh, and bones : and his conclusion is built on this 
principle, that members follow the head, or that the parts 
go with the whole : which reasoning supposes that the sacred 
symbols, though not literally, are yet interpretatively, or con- 
structionally, the body and blood r . 4. To make the symbols 

P Compare a fragment of Irenaeus, body, which they suppose to be lo- 
p. 343, concerning Blandina ; from cally present : or that any feeding 
which it is manifest that the Chris- is a pledge of a happy resurrection, 
tians despised the Pagans for imagin- since they suppose the feeding com- 
ing that Christ's body and blood were nion both to good and bad. Hence 
supposed to be literally eaten in the it is, that they can make no sense of 
Eucharist : they rejected the thought Irenaeus's argument. See Pfaffius, 
with abhorrence. pp. 72, 7.3, 84, 85, 104. Deylingius, 

1 1n like manner, Nazianzen makes Obse:v. Miscellan. pp. 75, 76. They 

Baptism to consist of two things, might perceive, if they pleased, from 

water and the Spirit ; which answers this plain mark, that their scheme 

to Irenaeus's earthly and heavenly has a flaw in it, and cannot stand, 

parts in the Eucharist. Gregor. Na- The mistake is owing to the want of 

zianz. Orat. xi. p. 641. considering the nature of symbolical 

r N.B. The Lutherans know not language and symbolical grants. Our 
how to allow, in their way, that our bodies are not literally, but symbol- 
bodies are so fed with the Lord's ically fed with our Lord's body ; 

L 2 

148 Sacramental or Symbolical CHAP. 

answer in such a view, he supposes the concurrence of a 
Divine power to secure the effect, a spiritual presence of the 
Logos. 5. One thing only I conceive our author to be inaccu- 
rate in, (though perhaps more in expression than real meaning,) 
in superinducing the Logos upon the symbols themselves, 
rather than upon the recipients, which would have been better. 
But in a popular way of speaking, and with respect to the 
main thing, they may amount to the same : and it was not 
needful to distinguish critically about a mode of speech, while 
there was no suspicion of wrong notions being grafted upon it, 
as hath since happened. 6. Lastly, I may note that these larger 
passages of Irenaeus may serve as good comments upon the 
shorter ones of Ignatius before cited : and so Ignatius may lend 
antiquity to Irenaeus's sentiments, while Irenaeus's add light and 
strength to his. 

A.D. 192. Clemens of Alexandria. 

This Clemens was a person of infinite reading, and of great 
reputation in the Christian Church. His pieces are all of them 
learned, though not always so clear as might be wished. In a 
very full head, ideas are often crowded, and have not room to be 
distinctly ranged. Our author appears to have had elevated 
sentiments of the Christian Eucharist, but such as require close 
attention to see to the bottom of. He writes thus : 

' The blood of the Lord is twofold, the carnal by which we 
are redeemed from corruption, and the spiritual by which we 
are anointed : to drink the blood of Jesus is to partake of our 
Lord's immortality. Moreover, the power of the Word is the 
Spirit, as blood is of the flesh. And correspondently, as wine 
is mingled with water, so is the Spirit with the man : and as 
the mingled cup goes for drink, so the Spirit leads to immor- 
tality. Again, the mixture of these two, viz. of the drink and 

which in effect is tantamount : there lingius concludes, however it be. (that 

lies the whole mystery of the matter ; is, though he can make no consistent 

and thereupon hangs Irenaeus's ar- sense of his author,) yet Irenaeus is 

gument. Good men are considered in clear for real presence. Not at all in 

that action as so fed ; and it will be the Lutheran or the Popish sense ; 

imputed to them, and accepted by but only so far as symbolical and 

God, as if it literally were so. Dey- effectual amount to real. 

vii. feeding in the Eucharist. 149 

of the Logos together, is called the Eucharist, viz. glorious and 
excellent grace, whereof those who partake in faith are sanc- 
tified, both body and soul. The Father's appointment mysti- 
cally tempers man, a Divine mixture, with the Spirit and the 
Logos : for, in veiy deed, the Spirit joins himself with the soul 
as sustained by him, and the Logos with the flesh, for which the 
Logos became flesh s .' What I have to observe of these lines of 
Clemens may be comprised in the particulars here following : 

i. The first thing to be taken notice of, is the twofold blood 
of Christ : by which Clemens understands the natural blood shed 
upon the cross, and the spiritual blood exhibited in the Eucha- 
rist, namely, spiritual graces, the unction of the Holy Spirit, and 
union with the Logos, together with Avhat is consequent there- 
upon. As to parallel places of the Fathers, who speak of the 
anointing, in the Eucharist, with the blood of Christ through the 
Spirit, the reader may consult Mr. Aubertine fc ; or Bishop Fell 
in his notes upon Cyprian u . St. Jerome seems to have used the 
like distinction with Clemens between the natural and spiritual 
body and blood of Christ x . If we would take in all the several 
kinds of our Lord's body, or all the notions that have gone under 
that name, they amount to these four : i. His natural body, 
considered first as mortal, and next as immortal. 2. His typical 

s AITTOI/ 8e TO aijua rov Kvplov' rb 8e trap!;, Ty \6ycf 5j' fyv 6 \6yos 

/j.(f yap eo-nv avrov ffapKinbv $ rrjs ytyove fftip. Clem. Alex. Paedag. 

tpOopas \e\vr p& fitOa' rb Se irvfv/j.ari- lib. ii. c. 2. pp. I77> !7^- Compare 

KOC, rovrtffTLv 3i Kt^pia /j.t6a' Kal rovr' Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, part 

firrtv TTttiv rb alfta rov 'Irjcrov, TTJS KV- i. p. 188. 

ptaxris jueraAa/SeiV a(p6ap<rias. 'Icrxvs * Albertinus de Eucharistia, p. 

5e roO \6yov rb trvtvp.a, us af/ua (rap- 380. 

K<$S. '\6y<>>5 roivvv tctpvarcu, 6 u Cyprian. Ep. Ixx. p. 190. Note 

^.e*' olvos T<f vSart, ry 8e avOptairtf that the words in that edition are, 

rb irvev/Lia. Kal rb els iria-riv 'Eucharistia est unde baptizati un- 

[leg. ir6ffiv] fixaxf?, rb fcpa/ua 1 rb Se guntur, oleum in altari sanctifica- 

(1s afyQapaiav oSrjyei, rb irytvfji.a,' TJ Se turn.' But in the Benedictine edition,<pa7v avBts Kpcuns, irorou re Kal \6- p. 125, the latter part is corrected 

you, tvx.apiffrta (ce/cArjTai, x^P iS 6 1ra " / " into ' oleo in altari sanctificato.' 
ov/j.evri KOI Ka\rf ^s ol Kara iriffnv x ' Dupliciter vero sanguis Christi 

HerahanBdvovres, ayi.doi>rai Kal <ru>/jia et caro intelligitur : vel spiritualis 

Kal ^/vx^v rb Bfiov Kpa/j.a, rbv avSpia- ilia atque divina, de qua ipse dixit 

Troy, ToO irarptKov 0ouA^/naros irvtv- Joan. vi. 54, 56 ; vel caro, et sanguis, 

yuan Kal \6yif ffvyKipvavros HVVTIKUS' quae crucifixa est, et qui militis ef- 

Kal yap us a\-rj9ias rb irvtvfj.a (pKei- fusus est lancea.' Hieron. in Eph. 

urai ry KTT' avrov (pfpofifi/ri tyvxfi' i} c. i. p. 328. 

150 Sacramental or Symbolical CHAP. 

or symbolical body, viz. the outward sign in the Eucharist. 
3. His spiritual body, in or out of the Eucharist, viz. the thing 
signified. 4. His mystical body, that is, his Church. But I 

2. The next observation to be made upon Clemens is, that he 
manifestly excludes the natural body of Christ from being lite- 
rally or locally present in the Sacrament, admitting only the 
spiritual ; which he interprets of the Logos .and of the Holy 
Spirit, one conceived more particularly to sanctify the body, and 
the other the soul, and both inhabiting the regenerate man. 
Which general doctrine, abstracting from the case of the Eucha- 
rist, is founded in express Scripture y, and may by just and clear 
consequence be applied to the Eucharist, in virtue of the words 
of the institution, and of John vi. and other texts, besides the 
plain nature and reason of the thing. 

3. Another thing to be observed of Clemens is, that as he 
plainly rejects any corporal and local presence, so does he as 
plainly reject the low notions of the figurists or memorialists : 
for no man ever expressed himself more strongly in favour of 
spiritual graces conveyed in the Eucharist. 

4. It may be further noted, which shews our author's care and 
accuracy, that he brings not the Logos and Holy Spirit so much 
upon the elements, as upon the persons, viz. the worthy receivers, 
to sanctify them both in body and soul. He does indeed speak 
of the mixture of the wine and the Logos ; and if he is to 
be understood of the personal, and not vocal, Word, he then 
supposes the Eucharist to consist of two things, earthly and 
heavenly, just as Irenaeus before him did : but even upon that 
supposition, he might really mean no more than that the com- 
municant received both together, both at the same instant. They 
were only so far mixed, as being both administered at the same 
time, and to the same person, receiving the one with his mouth, 
and the other with his mind, strengthened at once both in body 
and in soul z . Clemens, in another place, cites part of the insti- 

y John xiv. 16, 17, 23. I Cor. iii. considerantur, tanquam unum aggre- 

16, 17 ; vi. 19. 2 Cor. vi. 1 6. gatum, idque ob conjunctam ambo- 

z ' Signum signatumque conjunctim rum exhibitionem et participationem 

vii. feeding in the Eucharist. 151 

tution, by memory perhaps, as follows : ' He blessed the wine, 
saying, Take, drink ; this is my blood. The blood of the grape 
mystically signifies the Word poured forth for many, for the 
remission of sins, that holy torrent of gladness a .' Three things 
are observable from this passage : one, that the wine of the 
Eucharist, after consecration, is still the blood of the grape : 
another, that it is called the blood of Christ, or blood of the 
Logos, (as Origen also b styles it,) symbolically signifying and 
exhibiting the fruits of the passion : lastly, that those fruits are 
owing to the union of the Logos with the suffering humanity. 
These principles all naturally fall in with the accounts I have 
before given. 

A.D. 200. Tertullian. 

The sentiments of the African Christians, in those early days, 
may be probably judged of by Tertullian, a very learned and 
acute writer, who thus expresses them : ' Bread is the Word 
of the living God, which came down from heaven ; besides 
that his body also is understood in bread : This is my body. 
Therefore in asking our daily bread, we ask for perpetuity in 
Christ, and to be undivided from his body 6 .' Here our author 
teaches that the Divine nature of our Lord is our bread, and 
likewise that his human nature is our bread also, given us in 
or under the symbol of the sacramental bread. So Rigaltius d 
interprets the passage, quoting a similar passage of St. Austin : 

in usu legitimo. Quam conjunctionem b Orig. in Levit. Horn. ix. p. 243. 

vulgo vocant unionem sacramenta- See above, p. 54, and compare Cy 

lem, sed non usque adeo convenien- rill. Alex, contra Nestor. 1. v. p. 

ter ; cum non signatum cum signo, 123. 

sed nobiscum uniatur, eoque potius, c ' Panis est Sermo Dei vivi, qui 
minus saltern ambigue, conjunctio descendit de caelis. Turn quod et 
pacti debeat nominari.' Vossius, de corpus ejus in pane censetur : Hoc est 
Sacram. Vi et Effic. p. 250. Cp. corpusmeum. Itaque petendo panem 
Bucer. Script. Anglican, p. 544. quotidianum, perpetuitatem postula- 
a Kai tv\6yri(riv ye rbv olvov, tlir<\>v, mus in Christo, et individuitatem a 
Aa$eTe, ir'ttrf rovr6 jiiou fffrlv rb corpore ejus.' Tertullian. de Orat. 
oTua. Af/xa TTJS a/j.Tre\ov rbv \6yov C. vi. pp. 131, 132. 
r)>v irtpi iro\\&i> tKxtd/J-tvov fls &(f>ecni> d ' Sic videtur explicari posse : Per 
afj.apTi.cav, fvtfipoffvvqs ayiov a\\r]yo- panis sacramentum commendat cor- 
ps? 1/ Clem. Paedag. lib. ii. cap. pus suum : quemadmodum Augusti- 
2. p. 186. I have altered the com- nus 1. i. Quae^t. Evang. 43. dixit, 
mon pointing, for the improving the Per vini sacramentum commendat 
sense. sanguinoin suum.' Eigalt. in loc. 

152 Sacramental or Symbolical CHAP. 

but the reader may compare Albertinus 6 . We can allow the 
Romanists here to understand Christ's real and natural body 
given in the Sacrament, but mystically, spiritually, and inter- 
pretatively given; as a right may be given us to a distant 
possession. Tertullian seems to understand body, of the body 
glorified, because he speaks of our being undivided from it, and 
may best be explained of the mystical union between Christ and 
his members, perfected in this Sacrament : which kind of union, 
as I have more than once hinted, supposes no local corporal 
presence, nor infers any. 

Tertullian elsewhere speaks of our bodies as being fed with 
the body and blood of Christ, that our souls may be feasted with 
God, or may feed upon God f . There I understand body and 
blood of Christ, of the sacramental, symbolical body and blood, 
that is, of the bread and wine, which literally nourish the body of 
man, and symbolically the soul. Signs often bear the names of 
the things signified, as Tertullian more than once intimates with 
reference to this very case z. And when he says, that Christ 
made the bread his own body h , he must be understood of the 
symbolical body, (the figure, or symbol of the natural body,) 
representing i and exhibiting the thing signified. 

But I must observe further, that when Tertullian builds an 
argument for the resurrection of the body upon this consideration, 
that our bodies are fed with the symbolical body of Christ, (as 
I have explained it,) he cannot be understood to mean less than 
that the symbolical body is constructionally or interpretatively 
the real body ; and so our bodies are literally fed with one, while 
mystically and spiritually fed with the other also. Without this 
supposition, there is no force at all in his argument for the 

e Albertinus de Eucharist, p. 344. ' Panem corpus suum appellans.' 

He understands it thus: that bread Tertull. adv. Jud. cap. x. p. 196. 

is a name for the sacramental body, contr. Mar. lib. iii. cap. 19. p. 

as well as for common bread, and for 408. 

spiritual food, i.e. Christ himself. h 'Acceptumpanemetdistributum 

1 'Caro cor pore et sanguine Christ! discipulis corpus ilium suum fecit, 

vescitur, ut et anima de Deo sagine- Hoc EST COBPUS MEUM dicendo : id 

tur : non possunt ergo separari in est, figuracorporismei.' Contr. Marc, 

mercede, quas opera conjungit.' Ter- I. iv. cap. 40. p. 458. 

tull. de Resur. Carn. cap. viii. p. 330. ' ' Panem quo ipsum corpus suum 

Cp. Albertin. p. 340. repraesentat. 1 Contr. Marc. lib. L 

vii. feeding in the Eiickarist. 153 

resurrection. Our bodies are considered as fed with Christ's 
natural body, therefore they are considered as pertaining to, or 
mingled with his body; therefore they are in construction one flesh 
with him ; therefore, as his body is glorified, so also will ours be, 
head and members together. Such is the tour of the argument, 
such the chain of ideas that forms it \ Which is confirmed by 
what he adds, viz. that soul and body being partners in the work, 
will share also in the reward. What is the work 1 The work of 
feeding upon Christ : both feast together here upon the same 
Lord, therefore both shall enjoy the same Lord hereafter. Which 
inference implies that even our bodies are in some sense (namely, 
in the mystical and constructional sense) fed with our Lord's 
natural body, as crucified, or as glorified. Enough has been 
said, to give the reader a competent notion of Tertullian's 
doctrine on this head. I shall only take notice further, that the 
acute and learned Pfaffius, following the Lutheran hypothesis, 
has collected many testimonies seemingly favouring that side, 
but then, very ingenuously, has matched them with others which 
are directly repugnant to it ; and he has left them facing each 
other 1 , unreconciled, irreconcilable. How easily might all have 
been set right, had he but considered a very common thing, 
called construction of law, or duly attended to the symbolical 
language which Scripture and Fathers abound in. To what 
purpose is it to cite Fathers in any cause, without reconciling 
the evidence 1 Self- contradictory evidence is null or none. But 
I proceed. 

A.D. 240. Origen. 

Bullinger, in his treatise against Casaubon, cites a passage as 
Origen's which runs thus : ' He that partakes of the bread, par- 
takes also of the Lord's body : for we look not to the objects of 
sense lying before us, but we lift up the soul by faith to the body 
of the Logos. For he said not, This is the symbol, but This is 

fc A collection of other ancient though he does not account for it in 

testimonies, so far as concerns that the same way. 

argument, may be seen in Johnson, ' Vid. Pfaffius de Consecrat. Vet. 

(Unbl. Sacr. part ii p. no, &c.), Euchar. pp. 465, 470, 471. 

154 Sacramental or Symbolical CHAP. 

the body ; to prevent any one's thinking that it was a type m .' 
Albertinus throws off this passage as spurious, and as the pro- 
duct of some modern Greek n . Huetius comes after, and blames 
him for arbitrarily cutting the knot , as he supposes. But 
there would be no great difficulty in untying the knot, were it 
certain that the words are Origen's. I will suppose that they 
are ; and indeed I see no good reason why they may not. He 
seems to have intended nothing more but to raise up vulgar 
minds from grovelling apprehensions to heavenly contemplations. 
Such exhortations to the populace are frequent in other Fathers. 
Origen admits not of naked signs, or mere figures : he was no 
Sacramentarian. He thought, very rightly, that the words of 
the institution were too strong and emphatical to submit to so 
low a meaning. He conceived that, under the symbolical body, 
was to be understood the natural body of Christ, the body of the 
Logos. If we take in another passage of Origen's, out of one of 
his Homilies P, and join it with this, there will then appear a 
threefold, elegant gradation in his whole account, as thus : Look 
not to the typical body, but raise your minds higher up to the 
natural flesh of Christ : yea, and stop not there, but ascend still 
higher, from human to Divine, conceiving that flesh as personally 
united with the Divine Logos, or as the body of God. All which 
is true and sound doctrine, and very proper subject-matter for 
Christian exhortations : I need not add, that the whole is ex- 
tremely suitable to what I have been maintaining all along in 
this chapter. 

A.D. 250. Cyprian. 

It is frequent with Cyprian to speak of the sacred elements 
under the name of our Lord's body and blood. I need not cite 
passages to prove what no one who has ever looked into that 
author can doubt of : in what sense he so styled them, pursuant 

m Kol yao 6 aprov Ai T f'x" TW contr. Casaub. p. 617. 

a&ttaros Kvplov jteTaAajtjSavei' ov yap n Albertin. de Eucharist, lib. ii. 

irpoffexo/J-f TJJ Qvfffi -ruv alff6i)Tios cap. 3. p. 367. 

irpoKetufvwv, aAV avdyonfv T^V ^i>xV Huetii Origeniana, p. 182. 

8ia in<rrM M rb TOV \6yov aw/j.a. P 'Non baereas in sanguine carnis, 

oil yap flire, rovrA 3<m ffv/j.Bo\ov, sed disce potius sanguinem Verbi, ' 

oA\a rovr6 imi ffu/j-a' 5i/cTiai$, 'iva. &c. Orig. in Levit. Horn. is. p. 

p.)) von'ifo Tts Tviiov (Ifcu. Bulling 243. 

vii. feeding in the EucJiarist. 155 

to the words of the institution, is the single question. He says, 
in a certain place, that our Lord, in the original Eucharist, 
offered up bread and wine, viz. his own body and blood q. It 
is plain that he thought not of trausubstantiation, since he calls 
the elements bread and wine, even after consecration, and sup- 
poses besides, that Christ offered the same in substance that Mel- 
chizedeck had offered long before the incarnation. Neither could 
Cyprian think of consubstantiation, since he admits of no other 
body and blood as there present, and literally offered, but the 
same individual bread and wine : they were the body and blood. 
But how were they such, since they were not so, strictly and 
literally? I answer, they were figuratively such, according to our 
author : not that the elements were by him supposed to be mere 
figures, or memorials, or representations; but what they repre- 
sented, that they represented with effect, and so amounted in 
just construction and beneficial influence to the same thing. This 
was the notion he had of them, as will sufficiently appear from 
several clear passages. He supposes the natural blood of Christ 
by which- we are redeemed, to be in the cup, in some sense or 
other, when the sacred wine is there r : the wine represents it, 
stands for it, and is interpretatively the same thing. He could 
not well mean less than this, by saying, that the blood is signified 
(ostenditur) in the wine, and that it is supposed to be in the cup, 
' videtur esse in calice,' is looked upon as being there. Not 
literally to be sure, but constructionally, and in effect : for the 
effects, according to him, upon every faithful receiver, are remis- 
sion of sins 3 , and spiritual strength against the adversary 4 , and 

i ' Sacrificium Deo Patri obtulit, ' Epotato sanguine Domini et po- 
et obtulit hoc idem quod Melchise- culo ealutari, exponatur memoria 
dech obtulerat, id est, panem et veteris hominis, et fiat oblivio con- 
vinum, suum scilicet corpus et san- versationis pristinae saecularis, et 
guinem.' Cypr. Epist. Ixiii. p. 105. moeatum pectus et triste, quod prius 
ed. Bened., alias p. 149. peccatis angentibus premebatur, Di- 

r 'Nee potest videri sanguis ejus, vinae indulgentiae laetitia resolva- 

quo redempti et vivificati sumus, tur.' Cypr. Ep. Ixiii. p. 107, alias 

esse in calice quando vinum desit 153. 

calici, quo Christi sanguis ostenditur, * ' Protectionesanguinis et corporis 

qui Scripturarum omnium Sacramen- Christ! muniainus ; et cum ad hoc 

to ac testimonio praedicatur.' Ep. fiat Eucharistia, ut possit accipienti- 

Ixiii. p. 104. bus esse tutela, quos tutos esse con- 

Sacramental or Symbolical CHAP. 

life eternal 11 . So far was he from the low and degrading notions 
of the figurists in this article ; and yet sufficiently guarded (as I 
have before hinted) against another extreme. 

There are no more considerable authorities to be met with, so 
far as concerns this article, till we come down to the fourth cen- 
tury, and so on ; and there they are innumerable : all following 
the same tenor of doctrine, all, when rightly understood, teach- 
ing the same thing, in the main, with what I have here repre- 
sented from their predecessors ; so that I know not whether it 
might not be tedious to my readers, to proceed any further in a 
recital of this kind. But I may single out one, as it were, by 
way of specimen, leaving the rest to be judged of by that . and 
that one may be Cyril of Jerusalem, as proper a sample perhaps 
as any. 

A.D. 348. Cyril of Jerusalem. 

I do not know any one writer, among the ancients, who has 
given a fuller or clearer, or in the main juster account of the 
holy Eucharist, than this the elder Cyril has done ; though he 
has often been strangely misconstrued by contending parties. 
The true and ancient notions of the Eucharist came now to be 
digested into somewhat of a more regular and accurate form, 
and the manner of speaking of it became, as it were, fixed and 
settled upon rules of art. Cyril expresses himself thus : ' Receive 
we [the Eucharist] with all fulness of faith, as the body and 
blood of Christ : for, under the type [or symbol] of bread, you 
have his body given you, and under the type [or symbol] of 
wine, you receive his blood ; that so partaking of the body and 
blood of Christ, you may become flesh of his flesh, and blood of 
his blood. For, by this means, we carry Christ about us, in as 
much as his body and blood is distributed into our members : 
thus do we become, according to St. Peter, partakers of the 
Divine nature x .' The doctrine here taught is, that in the Eucha- 

tra adversarium volumus, munimen- tiamjurecommunicationisaccipiunt.' 
to Dominicae saturitatis armemus.' Cypr. de Orat. pp. 209, 210. 
Ep. liv. p. 77> a li aa Ep. Ivii. p. * Mera irairTjs 7rA.7jpo<popt'as, ais 
117- (TtafjLHTos /cat aVuaros fifra\a/j.0ayca- 
u ' Manifestum est eos vivere qui fiev Xf<rroG' ev rinry yap aprov, Si- 
corpus ejus attiugunt, et Eucharis- Sorai aoi rb a5>p.a, KO.\ Iv Tinrcp olvou 

vii. feeding in the Eucharist. 157 

rist we receive (not literally, but symbolically) the natural body 
and blood of Christ ; just as the priests of old, in eating the 
sacrifices symbolically, but effectually, ate up the sins of the 
people, or as the faithful Israelites, in eating manna and drink- 
ing of the rock, effectually fed upon Christ. The symbolical 
body and blood are here supposed by our author to supply the 
place of the natural, and to be in construction and beneficial 
effect (not substantially) the same thing with it ; and so he 
speaks of our becoming by that means one flesh and one blood 
with Christ, meaning it in as high a sense, as all the members of 
Christ are one body, or as man and wife are one flesh. We 
carry Christ about us, as we are mystically united to him. His 
body and blood are considered as intermingled with ours y, when 
the symbols of them really and strictly are so : for the benefit is 
completely the same ; and God accepts of such symbolical union, 
making it, to all saving purposes and intents, as effectual as any 
the most real could be. Cyril never thought of any presence of 
Christ's natural body and blood in the Sacrament, excepting 
in mystery and figure, (which he expresses by the word 'type,') 
and in real benefits and privileges. 

He goes on to observe, that our Lord once told the Jews 
(John vi. 54) of eating his flesh, &c. And they not understanding 

SlSorai ffoi rb al/j.a. 'Iva yti>7}, p-tra- 272. Cp. in Matt. Horn. Ixxxiii. 

ActyS&j' ffttifj.a.Tos Kal a'1/j.aTos XpiaroC, p. 788. 

arva-<Toi/j.os Kal awat^os O.VTOV. OUTOI ' To shew the fervour of his affec- 

yap Kal xP i<rTO( P^P ' ytv6fif6a. rov tion towards us, he has mingled 

crcl>fj.aros avrov Kal rov afytaroy tls himself with us, and diffused his 

TO -f)fj.fTfpa avaSiSo/j.fvou jueA.7j. OUTGO, own b >dy into us, that so we may 

Kara rbv fj.aK<ipiov Tlfrpov, Oftas KUL- become one thing, as a body joined 

vtuvol (pvfffws ytv6/ji.e6a. Cyrill. Hie- with the head.' Cp. Cyril. Alex, 

rosol. Mystag. iv. sect. 3. p. 320. In Joan. pp. 365, 862. De Sanct. 

ed. Bened. Trin. p. 407. Isidor. Pelus. lib. iii. 

y Chrysostom, in like manner, ep. 195. p. 333. 

speaks of Christ's intermingling his N.B. Cnrysostom else where speaks 

body with ours, in the Eucharist ; as highly of Baptism, and of the min- 

but explains it, at length, by the gling with our Lord's body, in that 

mystical union therein contracted, or Sacrament also, [in Coloss. Horn. vi. 

perfected between Christ the head, p. 201]; all which means nothing but 

and us his members avf/j.i^fi' the mystical union. Chamier has dis- 

favrbv i]fj.1v, Kal avf<pvpf rb ff<a/j.a cussed this whole matter at large, if 

aiiroD els rind.?, 'Iva. '4v TI inrdp(a[j.ei>, the reader desires further satisfac- 

Ko.Qa.irfp ffu/j.a Kf<pa\rj (rvvri/j.^tvov. tion. De Eucharist, lib. xi. cap. 8, 9. 

Chrysost. in Joan. Horn. xlvi. p. p. 633, &c. 


Sacramental or Symbolical 


that it was spoken spiritually, [but taking the thing literally,] 
were offended at it, as if he had been persuading them to devour 
his flesh z . Hence it appears further, that our author was no 
friend to the gross, literal construction. He proceeds as follows : 
' Under the New Testament we have heavenly bread, and a cup 
of salvation, sanctifying both body and soul : for as bread 
answers to body, so the Logos suits with the soul a .' This 
thought may be compared with another of Clemens above, some- 
what like, and somewhat different. But both agree in two main 
points, that the Eucharist sanctifies the worthy receiver both in 
body and soul, and that Christ is properly present in his Divine 
nature. Wherefore Cyril had the more reason for pressing his 
exhortation afterwards in high and lofty terms : ' Consider them 
[the elements] not as mere bread and wine ; for by our Lord's 
express declaration, they are the body and blood of Christ. 
And though your taste may suggest that to you, [viz. that they 
are mere bread and wine,] yet let your faith keep you firm. 
Judge not of the thing by your taste, but under a full persuasion 
of faith be you undoubtedly assured, that you are vouchsafed the 
body and blood of Christ 1 '.' This he said to draw off the minds 

apry Kal Tip otv<f' <reofj.a yap Kal ai'/ua 
Xpiffrov, Kara SfairoriKTjv rvyx af>fi 
airdtyaffiv. El yap Kal TJ afoOnffis ffoi 
TOVTO inrof)(i\\fi, aAA" fi irlffris ffe 

''E.Kttvoi /j. 
T>V Xfyo/ 

(is TO. 6iri<T(i>, vo/j.i<it>Tes %TI 
firl irapKo^aytaf avrovs irporpfirtTat. 
Cyril, ibid. p. 321. 

Toutte"e, the Benedictine, here 
blames our learned Milles for ren- 
dering ' quae spiritualiter dicebantur, 
non intelligerent,' instead of ' quae 
dicebantur, spiritualiter non intelli- 
gerent.' The criticism appears too 
nice, making a distinction without 
a difference ; for the sense is the 
same either way. The Capernaites 
were here censured for not spiritu- 
ally construing what was spiritually 
intended ; for taking literally, what 
was meant spiritually : which is what 
either translation at length resolves 

a "Ev rrj Kaivrj 8ia<W)K?, lipros ovpd- 
vios, Kal iror-fipiov crcarripiov, \]/vx?l v Ka ^ 
ff<afj.a ayiafwra' &airep yap & apros 
(T( KaTaAA.7jA.oy, ovrw Kal 6 \6yot 
rrj ifuxj? ap/uJSios. Cyril, ibid. p. 231. 

rb Ttpay/na. a\\' airb rrjs 
ir\rtpo<f>opov avevSidffrtas ffta^aTos Kal 
atjuaros Kpiffruv Karat(a6fis. Ibid. 
p. 321. 

N.B. The first Nicene Council (if 
we may credit Gelasius) had words 
to the same effect with these of Cy- 
ril : not with any intent to declare 
the nature or substance of the con- 
secrated elements, (which none could 
doubt of,) but to engage the atten- 
tion to their appointed use, and to 
the graces therein signified and con- 
veyed. Vid. Gelas. Cyzicen. part 2. 
concil. torn. i. p. 427. ed. Hard. 
Cp. Albertin. p. 384, &c. Bishop 
Moreton has largely explained it, b. 
iv. chap. ii. sect. ii. p. 302, &c. 

vii. feeding in the Eucharist. 159 

of his audience from low and carnal apprehensions, that so they 
might view those mysteries with the eye of faith, and not merely 
with the eye of sense ; might look through the outward sign, to 
the inward thing signified, and regale their spiritual taste more 
than the sensual. This is what Cyril really meant : though 
some moderns, coming to read him either with transubstantia- 
tiou or consubstantiation in their heads, have amused themselves 
with odd constructions of very innocent words. 

As to his exhorting his audience not to take the elements for 
mere bread and wine, it is just such another kind of address as 
he had before made to them, first in relation to the waters of 
Baptism, and next with regard to the Chrism. ' Look not to this 
laver, as to ordinary water, but (attend) to the grace conferred 
with the water c .' Would any sensible man conclude from hence, 
that the water was transubstantiated, according to our author, 
into some other substance 1 Let us go on to what he says of 
the Chrism. ' Have a care of suspecting that this is ordinary 
ointment, [or mere ointment] ; for, like as the sacramental 
bread, after the invocation of the Holy Spirit, is no more 
bare bread, but the body of Christ, so also this holy unguent is 
no more bare ointment, nor to be called common, after the invo- 
cation ; but it is the grace of Christ and of the Holy Spirit, 
endowed with special energy by the presence of his Godhead : 
and it is symbolically spread over the forehead and other parts 
of the body. So then the body is anointed with the visible 
unguent, but the soul is sanctified by the enlivening Spirit d .' 

I cite not this, as approving all that Cyril has here said of the 
Chrism, (not standing upon Scripture authority,) but to give 
light to what he has said of the Eucharist, which he compares 

c Mr; is v'SoTi Atro5 irp6ffe^f T<j5 ovS' a>s civ ftiroi -ns K.OIVOV JUT' firi- 

Xourpy, a\\a -rfi fjLfra TOV vSaros KX-r\aiv a\\a Xpicrrov x^P" T l Jia Ka ^ 

SiSo/utV?; x V 1T <- Cyrill. Catech. iii. Trvevp.a.'ros ayiov, irapowla rfjs avrov 

p. 40. Vid. Albertin. 429. Cp. Chry- Oe^Tifros fi/fpytriK^v yiv&p.tvov. oirtp Matt. Horn. Ixxxiii. p. 787. ffv/j.f3u\iKcos firl nerdnrov Kal TUV &\- 

d 'AAA' '6pa fj.^j unwo^tnjs txtlvo rb \<av ffov xplerat alff0ijTT)pi<av. Kal ry 

/j.vpov if/i\bv flvai' Siffirtp yap o &pros (patt'o/j.fvw ftvpy rd ffca/^a xpifrai, rif 

rrjs *i>xaprr/as, /uera r^jv 4ir'iK\T)(nv 5t ayicp Kal faiojroia) irvtv/j.ari f) ^v\r] 

TOV aylov iri/tvfuaTos, OVK fn apros ayideTat. Mystag. iii. p. 3 1-7. 

Airor, aAAa o-Si/j.a Xpitrrov, ovrca KOJ. Cp. Gregor. Nyssen. de Baptism. 

r<5 ayiov TOVTO /j.vpov OVK TI \l/t\ov, torn. iii. p. 369. 

160 Sacramental or Symbolical CHAP. 

with the other, while he supposes the cases parallel. He con- 
ceived the elements in one case, and the unguent in the other, to 
be exhibitive symbols of spiritual graces, instrumentally convey- 
ing what they represent. The bread and wine, according to his 
doctrine, are symbolically the body and blood : and by symboli- 
cally he means the very same thing which I have otherwise 
expressed by saying, that they are the body and blood in just 
construction and beneficial effect. What Cyril feared with respect 
to Baptism, and the Eucharist, and the Unction, was, that many in 
low life (coming perhaps from the plough, the spade, or the pale) 
might be dull of apprehension, and look no higher than to what 
they saw, felt, or tasted. Upon the like suspicion was grounded 
the ancient solemn preface to the Communion Service, called 
Sursum Corda by the Latins : wherein the officiating minister 
admonished the communicants to lift up their hearts, and they 
made answer, We lift them up unto the Lord e . 

To make the point we have been upon still plainer, let Cyril 
be heard again, as he expresses the thing in a succeeding lecture. 
' You hear the Psalmist with divine melody inviting you to the 
communion of the holy mysteries, and saying, Taste and see 
how gracious the Lord is. Leave it not to the bodily palate to 
judge : no, but to faith clear of all doubting. For the tasters 
are not commanded to taste bread and wine, but the antitype 
[symbol] of the body and blood of Christ f .' Here our author 
plainly owns the elements to be types, or symbols (as he had 
done also before,) and therefore not the very things whereof they 
are symbols ; not literally and strictly, but interpretatively, mys- 
tically, and to all saving purposes and intents ; which suffices s. 

e "A.vw ras KapSias. Cyril. Mystag. TCU yev<raa6a.i, aAAa avriTvirou craJ/ua- 

v. p. 326. Cyprian, de Orat. Domiu. ros Kal afytaros rov Xpio-rov. Mystag. 

p. 213, alias 152. Cp. Bingham, b. v. p. 331. 

xv. c. 3. sect. 3. Renaudot. Liturg. K Deylingius seems to wonder at 

Orient, vol. i. p. 226. Mr. Aubertine and Mr. Claude for 

f 'AKOvere rov ^dAAoi/ros, jtsri fit- under-commenting, as he conceives, 

\ovs Ofiov>ov fytas ts TV with respect to Cyril : Deyling. Ob- 

Koivuvlav riav ayiwv nvffrrjp'uev, Kol serv. Miscell. p. 157. But he attempts 

Ae-yoj/Tos, ytvaaffQe ical fSere art xP"n~ no * to confute what they had said : it 

ffrbs 6 Kvpios. M^7 rtj> \dpvyyi ry <TO>- was wiser to forbear. The utmost 

/uaTc tTrirptirere ro Kpinic6v. ouxi. that any one can justly make of the 

oAAa TTJ a.vtv5oidffr<f irlffrfi. ytvope- very strongest expressions in Cyril, 

voi yap OVK Itprov Kal olvov Kt\fvoi>- can amount only to a mystical union 

vii. feeding in the Eucharist. 161 

It is no marvel, if Mr. Toutte h and other Romanists interpret 
Cyril to quite another purpose : but one may justly wonder how 
the learned and impartial Dr. Grabe should construe Cyril in 
that gross sense, which he mentions under the name of aug- 
mentation i. I presume, he read Cyril with an eye to modern 
controversy, and did not consider him as speaking to mechanics 
and day-labourers : or, he was not aware of the difference there 
is betAveen telling men what they are to believe, and what they 
ought to attend to, which was Cyril's chief aim. As to believing, 
he very well knew that every one would believe his senses^ 
and take bread to be bread, and wine to be wine, as himself 
believed also : but he was afraid of their attending so entirely 
to the report of their senses, as to forget the reports of sacred 
Writ, which ought to be considered at the same time, and with 
closer attention than the other, as being of everlasting concern- 
ment. In short, he intended no lecture of faith against eyesight : 
but he endeavoured, as much as possible, to draw off their atten- 
tion k from the objects of sense to the object of faith, and from 
the signs to the things signified. 

It has been urged, as of moment, that Cyril compared the 
change made in the Eucharist to the miraculous change of water 
into wine wrought by our Lord in Cana of Galilee \ It is true 
that he did so : but similitudes commonly are no arguments of 
anything more than of some general resemblance. There was 
power from above in that case, and so is there in this : and it 

of Christ's body with the faithful com- (Deyling. Observat. Miscell. Exercit. 

muuicaiits, as members of him; which ii. p. 163, &c.) Only I may note, by 

is such an union as St. Paul resembles the way, that he has strained some 

to that whereby man and wife are one things in favour of the Lutheran prin- 

flesh, (Eph. v. 30, 31,) and which un- ciples, and has better confuted the 

doubtedly is a moral union, indepen- Romanists than he has established 

dent of local presence. his own hypothesis. 

h Touttee, Dissert, iii. prefixed to ' Grabe, ad Tren. lib. v. cap. 2. in 
his new edition of Cyril, c. ix. p. 204, notis, p. 399. Cp. Deyling. Obser- 
&c. The reader may compare Alber- vat. Miscellan. p. 177. 
tinus, (p. 422,) who had sufficiently k 'In Sacramentis non quid sint, 
obviated everything pleadable on the sed quid ostendant, attenditur ; quo- 
side of the Romanists. Compare also niam signa sunt rerum, aliud existen- 
Johnson, (Unbloody Sacrifice, part i. tia et aliud significantia.' Augustin. 
p. 257,) who has well defended Cyril contr. Max. lib. iii. cap. 22 : cp. de 
on this head, and Deylhigius, who in Doct. Christ, cap. 7. 
a set discourse has replied to Toutte"e. J Cyril. Mystag. iv. sect. 2. p. 320. 


1 62 Sacramental or Symbolical CHAP. 

may be justly called a supernatural power m ; not upon the ele- 
meuts to change their nature, but upon the communicants to add 
spiritual strength to their souls. The operation in the Eucharist 
is no natural work of any creature, but the supernatural grace 
of God's Holy Spirit. Therefore Cyril's thought was not much 
amiss, in resembling one supernatural operation to another, 
agreeing in the general thing, differing in specialities. In a 
large sense of the word miracle, there are miracles of grace, as 
well as miracles of nature ; and the same Divine power operates 
in both, but in a different way, as the ends and objects are 

I shall proceed no further with the Fathers on this head, be- 
cause it would be tedious, and in a manner endless. None of 
them, that I know of, carried the doctrine higher than this 
Cyril did; but most of them, somewhere or other, added par- 
ticular guards and explanations". All intended to say, that 
the elements keeping their own nature and substance, aiid not 
admitting a coalition with any other bodily substance, are sym- 
bolically or in mystical construction, the body and blood of Christ ; 
being appointed as such by Christ, accepted as such by God the 
Father, and made such in effect by the Holy Spirit, to every faith- 
ful receiver. So ran the general doctrine from the beginning 
and downwards : neither am I aware of any considerable change 

m 'Nequequaerituraut con trover- ' Sacramentum corporis et sangui- 

titur an panis et vinum supernatural! nis ejus, quod est in pane et calice 

virtu te, et omnipotentia divina a com- consecrato, corpus ejus et sanguinera 

muni elementorum usu, in sublimi- dicimus : non quod proprie corpus 

orem usum et dignitatem transmu- ejus sit panis, et poculum sanguis, 

tentur : fatemur enim in Sacramen- sed quod in se mysterium corporis 

tis omnino necesse esse, caelestem et ejus sanguinisque contineant. Hinc 

Bupernafruralemmutationem superve- et ipse Dominus benedictum panem 

nire, nee posse fieri Sacramentum nisi et calicem, quern discipul is tradidit, 

per onmipotentiam Dei, cujus solius corpus et sanguinem suum vocavit. 

est Sacramenta in ecclesia instituere, Quocirca, sicut Christi fideles, Sacra- 

ipsisqne efficaciam tribuere.' Cosin. mentum corporis et sanguinis ejus 

Hist. Transubst. cap. iv. p. 35 ; cp. accipientes, corpus et sanguinem 

p. 1 24. Compare Johnson, Unbloody Christi recte dicuntur accipere ; sic 

Sacrifice, part i. p. 258, alias 261. Al- et ipse Christus Sacramentum adop- 

bertin. 855. tionis filiorum cum suscepisset, potuit 

n For a specimen, we may take recte dici adoptionem filiorum ac- 

notice of Facundus, as late as the cepisse.' Facund. Hermian. lib. ix. 

middle of the sixth century, who cap. 5. Cp. Ephraem. Antioch. in 

writes thus: Phot. Cod. 229. p. 793. 

vii. feeding in the Eucharist. 163 

made in it till the dark ages came on, the eighth, ninth, tenth, 
and following centuries . The corruptions which grew up by 
degrees, and prevailed more and more till the happy days of 
reformation, are very well known P, and need no particular 

Luther first, and afterwards Zuinglius, attempted a reform in 
this article : but it was difficult to clear off the thick darkness 
all at once ; and so neither of them did it to such perfection as 
might have been wished. One threw off transubstantiation very 
justly, but yet retained I know not what corporal, local presence, 
and therefore did not retrench enough : the other threw off all 
corporal and local presence very rightly, but threw off withal 
(or too much neglected) the spiritual presence and spiritual 
graces : which was retrenching a great deal too much q. It must 
however be owned, that apologies have been since made for 
Zuinglius, as for one that erred in expression rather than in real 
meaning, or that corrected his sentiments on second thoughts r . 
And it is certain that his friends and followers, within awhile, 
came into the old and true notion of spiritual benefits 8 , and left 
the low notion of naked signs and figures to the Anabaptists of 
those times ; where they rested, till again revived by the Socin- 
ians, who afterwards handed them down to the Eemonstrants. 

Calvin came after Zuinglius, and refined upon his scheme, 
steering a kind of middle course, between the extremes. He 
appears to have set oift right, laying his groundwork with 
good judgment : and had he but as carefully built upon it after- 

See 1'Arroque, Hist, of the Eu- edit. Bened. A. D. 1215, the doc- 

charist, part ii. cap. 12, 13, &c. trine was made an article of faith by 

P In the year 787 the second Coun- the Lateran Council, under Innocent 

cil of Nice began with a rash deter- the Third. Afterwards, it was re- 

mination, that the sacred symbols established in the Trent Council, 

are not figures or images at all, but A. D. 1551, and at length in Pope 

the very body and blood. About Pius's Creed, A. D. 1 564. 

831, Paschasius Radbertus carried it i Vid. Calvin, de Coena Domini, 

further, even to transubstantiation, p. 10. et contr. Westphal. pp. 707, 

or somewhat very like to it. The 774. 

name of transubstantiation is sup- r See Archbishop Wake, Discourse 

posed to have come in about A. D. on the Holy Eucharist, p. 83. 

1 100, first mentioned by Hildebertus See Hooker, vol. ii. p. 327. 
Cenomanensis of that time, p. 689. 

M 2 

164 Sacramental or Symbolical CHAP. 

wards, no fault could have been justly found. In the first edition 
of his Institutions, (printed at Basil A. D. 1536,) he writes thus : 
'We say that they [the body and blood] are truly and efficaciously 
exhibited to us, but not naturally. By which we mean, not that 
the very substance of his body, or that the real and natural body 
of Christ are there given, but all the benefits which Christ pro- 
cured for us in his body. This is that presence of his body 
which the nature of a Sacrament requires *.' This came very 
near the truth, and the whole truth : only there was an ambiguity, 
which he was not aware of, in the words there given ; and so, 
for want of a proper distinction, his account was too confused. 
He should have said, that the natural body is there given, but 
not there present, which is what he really meant. The mystical 
union with our Lord's glorified body is there (or in that service) 
strengthened, or perfected ; as a right may be given to a distant 
possession : and such union as we now speak of, requires no 
local presence of Christ's body. Here that great man and illus- 
trious reformer was somewhat embroiled, and could never suffi- 
ciently extricate himself afterwards. He was well aware, that 
to assert only an application of the merit or virtue of Christ's 
passion, in the Eucharist, came not fully up to many strong 
expressions of the ancient Fathers relating to our union with 
the natural and now glorified body : nay, it appeared to fall short 
of St. Paul's doctrine, which represents the true disciples of 
Christ, as members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones u . 
I say, Calvin was well aware of this difficulty, and more especially 
after he had been warmly pressed on that head, in his disputes 
with the Lutherans. So he found himself to be under a neces- 
sity of bringing in the natural body some way or other w , but did 

* ' Dicimus vere et efficaciter exhi- w 'Neque enim mortis tantum ac 

beri, non autem naturaliter. Quo sci- resurrectionis suae beneficium nobis 

licet significamus, non substantiam offert Christus, sed corpus ipsum iu 

ipsam corporis, seu verum et naturale quo passus est et resurrexit. Con- 

Christi corpus illic dari, sed omnia cludo, realiter, hoc est vere, nobis in 

quae in suo corpore nobis beneficia coena dari Chi isti corpus, ut sit ani- 

Christus praestitit. Ea est corporis mis nostris in cibum salutarem In- 

praesentia quaoi Sacramenti ratio telligo, substantia corporis pasci ani- 

postulat.' Calvin. Instit. apud Wake, mas nostras, ut vere unum efficiamur 

p- 47- cum eo : vel, quod idem valet, vim 

u Ephes. v. 30. ex Christ! carne vivificam in nos per 

vii. feeding in the Eucharist. 165 

it a little confusedly, and out of course. He made it the ground x , 
instead of reckoning it among the fruits : and he supposed the 
glorified body to be, as it were, eaten in the Eucharist, when he 
should only have said, that it became more perfectly united with 
ours : and he further invented an obscure and unintelligible 
notion of the virtue of Christ's flesh being brought down from 
heaven and diffused all around, by the power of the Holy Spirit v . 
All which perplexity seems to have been owing to the wrong 
stating of a notion, which yet was true in the main, and which 
wanted only to be better adjusted, by a more orderly ranging of 
ideas, or by new casting it; which has been done since. 

Our Divines, who came after Calvin, had some advantage in 
point of time, and a greater still in the rule or method which 
they pitched upon, as most proper to proceed by : which was, 
not to strike out any new hypothesis or theories by strength of 
wit, but to inquire after the old paths, and there to abide. Arch- 
bishop Cranmer took this method : he was a judicious man, and 
a well-read Divine ; and more particularly in what concerns the 
Eucharist. We have the sum of his doctrine in the first page 
of his preface. 

'Where I use to speake sometymes, (as the olde authours 
doo,) that Christe is in the Sacramentes, I meane the same as 
they dyd understand the mattier : that is to say, not of Christes 
carnall presence in the outwarde Sacrament, but sometymes of 
his sacramentall presence ; and sometyme by this woorde sacra- 
ment I meane the whole mynistration and receyvynge of the 
Sacramentes, eyther of Baptisrne or of the Lordes Supper. And 

Spiritum diffundi. quamvis longe a hensibili spiritus virtute ex carnis 

nobisdistat, nee raisceatur nobiscum.' Christi substantia in nos diffundi.' 

Calvin, in I Cor. xi. 24. p. 392. Cp. Calvin, contr. Westphal. p. 842. 

contr. Westphal. pp. 774, 784. cp. 843. 

1 Vid. Beza, Orat. apud Placaei 'Corpus quod nequaquam cernis, 

Comment, de Stat. Relig. p. 1 12. Bi- spirituale est tibi alimentum. In- 

shop Cosin follows the same way of credibilehocvidetur,pasci nos Christ 

speaking ; Histor. Transubstan. pp. carne, quae tarn procul a nobis dis- 

35- 43' 44) 45- **t? memineiimus, arcanum et miri- 

y 'Plus centies occurrit in scriptis ficum esse. Spiritus Sancti opus, 

meis, adeo me non rejicere substan- quod intelligentiae tuae modulo me- 

tiae nomen, ut ingenue et libere pro- tin sit nefas.' Calvin, in I Cor. xi. 

fitear spiritualem vitam, incompre- 24. p. 392. 

1 66 Sacramental or Symbolical CHAP. 

so the olde writers many tymes dooe say, that Christe and the 
Holy Ghoste be present in the Sacramentes ; not meanynge by 
that manner of speache, that Christe and the Holy Ghoste be 
presente in the water, bread, or wyne, (whiche be only the out- 
ward vysyble Sacramentes,) but that in the dewe mynistration 
of the Sacramentes, accordynge to Christes ordynance and insti- 
tution, Christe and his Holy Spirite be trewly and indede present 
by their mighty and sanctifying power, virtue, and grace in all 
them that worthily receyve the same. Moreover, when I saye 
and repeate many tymes in my booke, that the body of Christ 
is present in them that worthyly receave the Sacramente, leaste 
any man shulde mystake my woordes, and thynke that I mean, 
that although Christe be not corporally in the outward visible 
sygnes, yet hee is corporally in the persones that duely receive 
them ; this is to advertise the reader, that I meane no suche 
thynge : but my meanyng is, that the force, the grace, the virtue, 
and benefyte of Christes bodye that was crucifyed for us, and 
of his bloudde that was shedde for us, be really and effectually 
present with all them that duely receave the Sacramentes. But 
all this I understande of his spiritual presence, of the whyche 
hee saythe, I wyll bee with you untyll the worldes ende : and, 
Wheresoever two or three be gathered together in my name, 
there am I in the myddes of them : and, He that eateth my 
fleshe, and drynketh my bloude, dwelleth in me, and I in hym. 
Nor no more truely is he corporally or really presente in the 
due mynistration of the Lordes Supper, than he is in the due 
mynistration of Baptisme z .' It is observable, that our judicious 
author wisely avoids saying anything of the eating of Christ's 
glorified body, for he speaks of the crucified only, and justly ex- 
plains the spiritual manducation of it. He drops all mention here 
of the mystical union with the body glorified, and so his account 
may be thought a little defective as to that particular : but he 
frequently takes notice of it in his book, as one of the effects or 

1 Cranmer's Answ. to Gardiner, ever in the Scripture it is said that 

edit. 1551. In the edition of 1580 Christ, God, or the Holy Ghost is 

there is added, to the passage cited, in any man, the same is understood 

as follows : ' That is to say, in both spiritually by grace.' 
spiritually by grace : and whereso- 

vii. feeding in the Eucharist. 167 

fruits of the spiritual manducation in the Eucharist, which 
strengthens and confirms the worthy receivers as members of 
Christ's natural body a . 

I may spare myself the trouble of reciting the sentiments of 
Bishop Ridley, and Bishop Latimer, and Mr. Bradford of that 
time, and of Bishop Jewel who came not long after : for they all 
agreed, in the main things, with Archbishop Cranmer, who may 
therefore be looked upon as 'instar omnium,' while in him we 
have all. I shall only take notice how our acutest Divines have, 
time after time, hit off the difficulties which were once very 
perplexing, by the use of proper distinctions, between the body 
crucified and the body glorified ; as likewise between manduca- 
tion and union. It will be sufficient to name two of them : one 
wrote as early as the days of Queen Elizabeth, and the other as 
late as King James the Second. 

Dr. William Barlow b , in the year 1601, published a treatise 
entitled, A Defence of the Articles of the Protestant Religion ; 
which he dedicated to Bancroft, then Bishop of London : he 
occasionally says something upon our present subject, which 
may be worth the noting, though the style is not the most 

' Great difference there is (perchance not observed by many) 
between our eating of Christ, and our uniting with him c 

' i. We eat him as our Passover d ; that as the Israelites 
ate the one " mortuum et assum," dead and roasted e , so we him 
" crucifixum et passum," dead and slain. And so that speech of 
St. Austin is true, we have him here " in pabulo" as he was " in 
patibulo," torn and rent : as himself ordained the Sacrament " in 
pane fracto," not " integro," the bread broken, not the whole loaf ; 
thereby signifying, yea saying, that in doing it we must remember 
him, not as living among us, but as dying for us ; " ut in cruce, 
non in caelo," as he was crucified, not as he is glorified. Whereby 

a Cranmer, pp. 16, 27, 43,44, 161, Bishop of Rochester in 1605, trans- 

174, 199. Compare Jewel, Answ. to lated to Lincoln in 1608, died 1613. 
Harding, art. v. p. 354, &c. c Barlow's Defence, &c. p. 124, 

b The same that published a rela- &c. 
tion of the Hampton Court Con- d 2 Cor. v. 7. 
ference in 1604, an< l wa ^ made e Exod. xii. 9. 

1 68 Sacramental or Symbolical CHAP. 

we conclude, first, for his presence, that his body is so far forth 
there " quatenus editur," as it is eaten : but his body is eaten 
as dead and slain ; so himself appointed it, This is my body, 
and stayeth not there, but adds withal, Which is given for you. 
And his blood is drunk, not as remaining in his veins, but as 
shed : so himself speaketh, This is my blood of the new testa- 
ment SHED for many. Now, his body bruised, and his blood 
poured out, can no otherwise be present in the Eucharist, but 
by a representation thereof in the bread broken, and in the wine 
effused, of the one side ; and on the communicant's part, by a 
grateful recordation of the benefits, a reverent valuation of the 
sacrifice, a faithful application of his merits in his whole passion : 
and therefore his presence must be saci*arnental, and our eating 
spiritual ; for, " non quod videtur, sed quod creditur, pascit," 
saith St. Austin. 

' 2. For the union, we are united to him "ut viventi," as our 
living head, " et nos vivificanti," and making us his lively mem- 
bers. It is true which Christ saith, that He which eateth my flesh, 
abideth in me, and I in him f . Not that this union is first 
begun in our participation of that holy Supper, (for none can 
truly eat the body of Christ, unless he be first united with him, 
and ingrafted into him : " nee vere edit corpus Christi, qui non 
est de corpore Christi," saith St. Austin,) because " prima unio," 
(saith Aquinas,) the first union between God and man is begun 
in Baptism by one Spirit ?, as the Apostle speaketh, and con- 
tinueth, by faith, hope, and charity ; all these the operation of 
the same Spirit. 

' But if we truly eat the body, and drink the blood of Christ, 
then by the power of the Holy Ghost, and faith co-operating, this 
union is strengthened, the vigour and effects whereof, after a 
true participation, we shall feel within ourselves more forcible 
and lively. ... Is not Christ as present in Baptism, as in the 
Eucharist 1 for in them both we communicate with him ; bred 
anew in the one, fed anew in the other : and yet Christ's real 
presence is not challenged for Baptism. If they say : No, because 
of the Eucharist it was said, This is my body and blood, not so 
1 John vi. 56. I Cor. xii. 13. 

vii. feeding in the Eucharist. 169 

of Baptism ; I answer : As much, if not more, was spoken by 
the Apostle ; They which are baptized have put on Christ h . 
Put him on we cannot, unless he be present : and the putting 
him on is even the very same which he elsewhere calleth Christ's 
dwelling in us \ namely, that in Baptism we are so transformed, 
as now not we, but Christ alone doth live within us k ; as near 
an unity as may 1 . And in truth St. Austin is out of doxibt, 
that in Baptism the true member of Christ " corporis et sanguinis 
Domini particeps fit," is partaker of the body and blood of the 
Lord m : and therefore no reason withstands, but that he should 
be really present in both, or in neithei*.' Thus far Bishop Barlow, 
whose words I have here quoted at length, chiefly for the sake 
of the distinction (as it is a very good one) between the mandu- 
cation and the union; the former relating properly to Christ 
considered as crucified and slain, and the latter to Christ con- 
sidered as glorified and living for evermore. We eat him as from 
the cross ; that is, we partake of the merits of his passion ; and 
one of the fruits of his passion is our mystical union with his body 
now glorified in heaven. One thing only I think wants correcting 
in Barlow's account, that he seems to make the union antecedent 
in natural order to the manducation ; which, I conceive, was 
needless with respect to his argument, and is besides wrong in 
itself, since our reconciliation by the death of Christ is, in 

h Gal. iii. 27. Cp. Phot. Amphi- Christ is so really present in both 

loch, apud Wolf. Cur. Crit. vol. ult. Sacraments, or in neither. If Christ 

p. 737. means whole Christ, he must be as 

1 Ephes. iii. 17. N. B. The obser- much present in body, to be put on 

vation here urged appears to be per- in Baptism, as to be orally taken in 

fectly just, and may be of great use the Eucharist : but who sees not that 

for discovering the weakness of the this is straining figurative expressions 

pleas made for the real and local pre- to a most extravagant excess ? 
sence in the other Sacrament. The k Gal. ii. 20. 

learnedBuddseus.forinstance, pleads, * I may here note, that the learned 

that the giving of the body cannot Wolfius on Gal. iii. 27 allows, that 

be understood without such real pre- the putting on Christ implies 'arctis- 

sence of the body ; and that no com- simam communionem,' (p. 740,) the 

munion can be without such real closest communion. Now compare 

presence : ' Koivtavia inter res quae sibi Buddaeus's argument, or maxim, built 

invicem praesentes non sunt, esse upon the word communion, as imply- 

nequit.' In>titut. Theol. Dogmat. ing real presence, and then jiidge of 

lib. v. cap. i. p. 1094. ^ ie ar g u " the conclusion resulting from the 

ment manifestly proves too much ; premises, 
proving (as Bar'ow well notes) that m See Fulgentius above, p. 564. 

170 Sacramental or Symbolical CHAP. 

natural oi'der of conception, prior to all the blessings and privi- 
leges arising from it. It is true that Baptism must be before 
the Eucharist, and that the mystical union is begun in Baptism : 
but then, (as our author himself afterwards very justly observes) 
we partake of our Lord's body broken, and blood shed, that is, 
of his death and passion, even in Baptism ; and that is the 
ground and foundation of all our other Christian privileges. 

Another excellent writer, whom I had in my eye, and now 
intend to cite, is Dr. Aldrich, who in the year 1687 published a 
valuable pamphlet, entitled a Reply to Two Discourses, where, 
in a very clear and elegant style, and with great acuteness, he 
has hit off the main difficulties relating to the real presence. He 
writes thus : 

' The natural body of our blessed Saviour comes under a two- 
fold consideration in the Eucharist : 

' i. As a body dead : under which notion we are said to eat it 
in the Sacrament, and to drink the blood as shed ; as appears 
by the words of the institution, Take and eat ; this is my body, 
which is given or broken for you : drink ye all of this ; for this 
is my blood, which is shed for you : in which words, as Mr. 
Bradford long ago observed, what God has joined, we are not to 
put asunder. 

'2. As a glorified body : in which condition it now sits at the 
right hand of God, and shall there continue till the restitution 
of all things, imparting grace and influence, and all the benefits 
purchased by the sacrifice of the dead body, to those that, in 
the holy Eucharist most especially, are through faith and the 
marvellous operation of the Holy Ghost, incorporated into Christ, 
and so united to him, that they dwell in Christ and Christ in 
them, they are one with Christ and Christ with them, they are 
made members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones ; and by 
partaking of the spirit of him their head, receive all the graces 
and benefits purchased for them by his bitter death and passion. 

'Wherefore it is evident, that since the body broken, and blood 
shed, neither do nor can now really exist, they neither can be 
really present, nor literally eaten or drank ; nor can we really 
receive them, but only the benefits purchased by them. But the 

vii. feeding in the Eucharist. iji 

body which now exists, whereof we partake, and to which we 
are united, is the glorified body : which is therefore verily and 
indeed received . . . and by consequence said to be really present, 
notwithstanding its local absence ; because a real participation 
and union must needs imply a real presence, though they do not 
necessarily require a local one. For it is easy to conceive, how 
a thing that is locally absent may yet be really received, ... as 
we commonly say, a man receives an estate, or inheritance, when 
he receives the deeds or conveyances of it. ... The reception is 
confessedly real, though the thing itself is not locally or circum- 
scriptively present, or literally grasped in the arms of the re- 
ceiver The Protestants all agree, that we spiritually eat 

Christ's body, and drink his blood ; that we neither eat, nor drink, 
nor receive the dead body, nor the blood shed, but only the bene- 
fits purchased by them ; that those benefits are derived to us by 
virtue of our union and communion with the glorified body 11 , 
and that our partaking of it and union with it is effected by 
the mysterious and ineffable operation of the Holy Spirit. . . . 

' Now though it be easy, as I said before, to conceive how a 
natural substance may be said to be really received, though not 
locally present, it is not so easy to conceive it really present, 
when at the same time it is locally absent. Therefore the Church 
of England has wisely forborne to use the term of " real presence," 
in all the books that are set forth by her authority. We neither 
find it recommended in the Liturgy, nor the Articles, nor the 
Homilies, nor the Church's, nor Nowell's Catechism. ... So that 
if any Church of England man use it, he does more than the 
Church directs him : if any reject it, he has the Church's 

example to warrant him Yet it must not be denied but the 

term may be safely used amongst scholars, and seems to be 
grounded upon Scripture itself . . . . 

' So much for the use of the word ; which when we of the 
Church of England use, we mean thus : A thing may be said to 
be really received, which is so consigned to us, that we can really 

D How this is to be understood, see above, pp. 96, 97. 
Here the author refers to several texts, Matthew xviii. 20 ; xxviii. 20 ; 
I Cor. v. 3. 

172 Sacramental or Symbolical CHAP. 

employ it to all those purposes for which it is useful in itself, 
and we have occasion to use it. And a thing thus really received 
may be said to be really present, two ways, either physically or 
morally, to which we reduce sacramentally. ... In the holy Eu- 
charist, the Sacrament is physically, the res sacramenti morally 
present ; the elements antecedently and locally ; the very body 
consequentially and virtually, but both really present. . . . When 
we say that Christ is present ... in the Sacrament, we do not 

mean in the elements, but in the celebration This doctrine is 

sufficiently removed from what the pamphlet calls Zuinglianism, 
(how truly, I will not now inquire,) for we do not hold that we 
barely receive the effects and benefits of Christ's body, but we 
hold it really present inasmuch as it is really received, and we 
actually put in possession of it, though locally absent from us P.' 

I have transcribed thus much, because the account is just, and 
because the pamphlet and defence of it are not, it may be, com- 
monly known. The sum of all is, that sacramental or symbolical 
feeding in the Eucharist is feeding upon the body broken and 
blood shed, under the signs and symbols of bread and wine : the 
result of such feeding, is the strengthening or perfecting our 
mystical union with the body glorified ; and so, properly speak- 
ing, we feed upon the body as dead, and we receive it into closer 
union as living, and both in the Eucharist when duly celebrated. 

Nothing now remains, before I close up this chapter, but to 
hint very briefly the use of the foregoing principles for the clear- 
ing off difficulties, and for the removing the objections raised by 
contending parties of various kinds. 

i. To the Romanists, who plead warmly for the very body and 
blood in the Eucharist, we make answer, that we do receive the 
very body and blood in it, and through it, as properly as a 
man receives an estate, and becomes possessed of an inheritance 
by any deeds or conveyances : and what would they have more ? 
Will nothing satisfy, except the wax and parchments be tran- 
substantiated into terra firma, or every instrument converted 
into arable 1 Surely, that is pushing points too far, and turn- 
ing things most serious into perfect ridicule. 

P Dr. Aldrich's Reply to Two Discourses, pp. 13 18. 

vii. feeding In the Eucharist. 173 

2. To the Lutherans, who seem to contend for a mixture of 
the visible elements with the body invisible, we have this to 
reply, that we readily admit of a symbolical delivery, or convey- 
ance, of one by the other ; which effectually answers every good 
end and purpose, as it suits also extremely well with the Scrip- 
ture phraseology in those cases. And though we admit not, that 
our Lord's body is locally present in the Sacrament, or any where 
so present but in heaven ; yet so long as it is really united in 
one mystical body with ours, or rather is considered as the head 
with the members, we think that may suffice ; and we need not 
desire any closer alliance, on this side heaven, than such an union 
amounts to. 

3. To the Calvinists of the ancient stamp, (if any such remained 
now,) we might reply, that though we eat not Christ's glorified 
body in the Eucharist, yet we really receive it, while we receive 
it into closer mystical union than before : and, though we know 
nothing of the diffusion of any virtue of Christ's flesh, (which 
would not profit,) yet we have the power and presence of his 
Godhead with us, and, at the same time, a virtual or mystical 
union Avith his body, sufficient to make us, in Divine construction 
and Divine acceptance, one with him : ' For we ai - e members of 
his body, of his flesh, and of his bones Q.' 

4. To the Zuinglian Sacramentarians, old Anabaptists, Soci- 
nians, and Remonstrants, who will not admit of any medium 
between local corporal presence, and no presence at all as to 
beneficial effects, no medium between the natural body itself, and 
mere signs and figures ; to them we rejoin, that there is no 
necessity of falling in with either extreme ; because there is a 
medium, a very just one, and where indeed the truth lies. For 
though there is no corporal presence, yet there is a spiritual one, 
exhibitive of Divine blessings and graces : and though we eat 
not Christ's natural glorified body in the Sacrament, or out of it, 
yet our mystical union with that very body is strengthened and 
perfected in and through the Sacrament, by the operation of the 
Holy Spirit. This appears to be both sense and truth ; and 
shall be more largely made out in the sequel. 

i Eplies. v. 30, 

174 Sacramental feeding in the Eucharist. CHAP. 

5. To those who admit not that the natural body of Christ is 
in any sense received at all, but imagine that the elements, as 
impregnated or animated with the Spirit, are the only body 
received, and are made our Lord's body by such union with the 
Spirit r ; I say, 'to those we make answer, that the union of the 
Spirit with the elements (rather than with the persons) appears 
to be a gross notion, and groundless : and if it were admitted, yet 
could it not make the elements, in any just sense, our Lord's 
body, but the notion would resolve into a kind of impanation of 
the Spirit, for the time. Besides that the consequence would be, 
that the Lord's body is received by all communicants, worthy or 
unworthy s , which is not the truth of the case. Wherefore to 
avoid all such needless suppositions and needless perplexities, let 
us be content to teach only this plain doctrine ; that we eat 
Christ crucified in this Sacrament, as we partake of the merits 
of his death : and if we thus have part in his crucified body, we 
are thereby ipso facto made partakers of the body glorified ; 
that is, we receive our Lord's body into a closer union than 
before, and become his members by repeated and stronger ties ; 
provided we come worthily to the holy table, and that there is 
no just obstacle, on our part, to stop the current of Divine 

I may shut up this account with the excellent words of Arch- 
bishop Cranmer, as follows, only put into the modern spelling : 

'The first Catholic Christian faith is most plain, clear, and 
comfortable, without any difficulty, scruple, or doubt : that is to 
say, that our Saviour Christ, although he be sitting in heaven, 

r This seems to be Mr. Johnson's stood merely of the essential presence 

notion, in the Unbloody Sacrifice, &c. extending equally to all creatures, 

part 5. p. 247. And it is very near but of a gracious presence : and if 

akin, so far, to that of the modern such gracious presence is vouchsafed 

Greek Church, as represented by Mr. to the unworthy as well as worthy, 

Claude in his Catholic Doctrine of then the benefits must be common 

the Eucharist, part i. book iii. c. 13. to all, and none can eat and drink 

p. 218. their own damnation. The funda- 

If the elements are supposed to mental error of this hypothesis, (as 

be united to, or enriched with the also of the Lutheran and the Romish,) 

Spirit, all that receive must of course is the connecting the grace of the 

receive the Spirit, and be sanctified Sacrament with the elements, in- 

by him. For the presence of the stead of looking for it in the person* 

Spirit, in this case, is not to be under- only. 

vm. i Cor. x. 16, &c. explained. 175 

in equality with his Father, is our life, strength, food, and sus- 
tenance ; who by his death delivered us from death, and daily 
nourishes and increases us to eternal life. And in token hereof, 
he hath prepared bread to be eaten, and wine to be drunk of us 
in his holy Supper, to put us in remembrance of his said death, 
and of the celestial feeding, nourishing, increasing, and of all the 
benefits which we have thereby : which benefits, through faith 
and the Holy Ghost, are exhibited and given unto all that 
worthily receive the said holy Supper. This the husbandman at 
his plough, the weaver at his loom, and the wife at her rock, can 
remember, and give thanks unto God for the same : this is the 
very doctrine of the Gospel, with the consent Avholly of all the 
old ecclesiastical doctors V 

My readers, I hope, will excuse it, if in the course of this chapter 
I have been obliged sometimes to suppose some things, which are 
hereafter to be proved : I could not avoid it, without rendering 
the whole intricate and obscure. What relates to spiritual graces 
in particular, as conveyed in the Eucharist, shall be distinctly con- 
sidered in its place, and the proofs produced at large : but there 
was no explaining what sacramental or symbolical feeding means, 
(which was the design of this chapter,) without taking some pre- 
vious and general notice of the spiritual graces, which are the 
food conveyed from heaven, by and under the symbols of bread 
and wine in the Eucharist. 

I Cor. x. 1 6, &c. explained, and vindicated from Misconstructions. 

ST. PAUL'S doctrine concerning the Eucharist, in the tenth 
chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, though but 
occasionally delivered, will yet deserve a distinct chapter by 
itself, as it is of great moment, and much depends upon a true 
and faithful construction of it. It will be proper, in the first 
place, to produce the whole passage, but correctly rendered, as 
near as may be to the Greek original. 

Verse 16. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a 

* Cranmer against Gardiner, p. 396. first edit. 


176 i Corinthians x. 16, &c. CHAP. 

communion of the blood of Christ ? the bread which we break, is 
it not a communion of the body of Christ ? 

17. For since the bread is one, we, being many, are one body: 
for we are all partakers of that one bread. 

1 8. Behold Israel after the flesh : are not they who eat of the 
sacrifices communicants of the altar? 

19. What say I then 1 ? that the idol is anything, or that what 
is offered in sacrifice to the idol is anything ? 

20. But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they 
sacrifice to devils, and not to God : and I would not have you 
become communicants of devils. 

2t. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of 
devils : you cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the 
table of devils. 

I have varied a little from the common rendering, partly for 
better answering the difference of phrase in the Gi'eek, between 
pcTfxfiv and xoivtovtlv, (be they equivalent or otherwise",) and 
partly for the better expressing the three communions, here 
brought in as corresponding to each other in the analogy ; 
namely, tUat of Christ's body and blood in the first place, next, 
that of the Jewish altar, and lastly, of devils. Our translation 
has, in some measure, obscured the analogy, by choosing, in one 
place, the word partakers (though it means the same thing) in- 
stead of communicants, and in another place, by saying communion 
with devils, instead of saying of devils : KMTCMWVS r>v Satfjioviav, 
v. 20. I use the phrase ' communicants of to express the partici- 
pating in common of anything : which perhaps is not altogether 
agreeable to the strict propriety of the English idiom. But I 
could not think of anything better, that would answer the pur- 
pose in other respects ; and since I have now intimated what I 
mean by it, the phrase, I suppose, may be borne with. But let 
us come to the business in hand. 

n In strictness, /ueT*'x' signifies standing, the words are sometimes 

the taking a part or parcel of any- used promiscuously. Chrysostom, 

thing, with others, who have likewise upon the place, takes notice of the 

their separate shares or parcels of it : distinction, and makes his use of it, 

but Koiv<evtiv is the partaking with for explaining the text, and doing 

others, ' in commune,' of the same justice to the suhject. 
whole, undivided thing. Notwith- 

viii. Explained and Vindicated. 177 

Before we can make a just use of St. Paul's doctrine in this 
place, as concerning the holy Communion, it will be necessary to 
understand the argument which he was then upon, with the 
occasion of it. The Christians of Corinth, to whom the Apostle 
writes, were encompassed with Pagan idolaters, and were in 
great danger of being insidiously drawn in, by specious pretences, 
to eat of meats which had been offered up, in the way of sacrifice, 
to their idols. Such eating (if Christians were aware that the 
meat had been so offered) was, in just construction, participating 
in common with the Pagan idolaters, of devils, to whom those 
idols or statues belonged. Whereupon St. Paul exhorts his 
new converts to beware of such dangerous practice, reminding 
them of the grievous judgments of God, which formerly came 
upon their forefathers the Israelites, for the sin of idolatry. 
' Neither be ye idolaters,' says he, ' as were some of them w :' 
and a little lower, 'Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from 
idolatry V But because they seemed not yet fully sensible 
that such practice of theirs was really idolatry, but they had 
several artificial evasions to shift off the charge, (as, that an idol 
was nothing in itself, and that they had no design by eating of 
such meats to signify any consent of theirs with idolaters, or to 
give any countenance to them,) I say, because the new converts 
were not readily convinced of the sin and danger of such practice, 
the Apostle undertakes to argue the case with them, in a very 
friendly, but strong and pressing manner, both upon Jewish and 
Christian principles, prefacing what he had to urge with this 
handsome compliment to them : ' I speak as to wise men,' (I 
appeal to your own good sense and sagacity,) 'judge ye what I 
sayy.' Then he proceeds to argue in the way of parallel, or 
by parity of reason, from the case of the Christian Eucharist, 
and the Jewish feasts upon peace-offerings, in order to infer from 
both, that as the Eucharist is interpretatively a participating of 
Christ's body and blood, and as the Jewish feasts were participating 
of the altar ; so the eating of idol-meats was interpretatively a 
participating of devils. To take the Apostle's argument in its 
just and full view, we must consider him as bearing in mind 
w I Cor. x. 7. * i Cor. x. 14. r i Cor. x. 15. 

178 i Corinthians x. 16, &c. CHAP. 

two distinct things which he had upon his hands to prove by 
one and the same argument : the first was, that eating of the idol- 
sacrifices (knowingly) was interpretatively consenting with the 
idolaters, or communicating with them, though they might mean 
nothing less ; and the second was, that such consenting with 
the idolaters was interpretatively, or in effect, participating of 
devils. Such heing the case, it could not but appear to be of 
very dangerous consequence, knowingly to eat of things offered 
to idols. 

From this view of the Apostle's argument, I pass on to con- 
sider what we may hence infer with respect to his doctrine of the 
Eucharist, thus occasionally delivered as the true and well-known 
doctrine of Christ. His account of it is briefly expressed, in its 
being a communion of Christ's body and blood ; that is to say, 
of the body considered as broken, and of the blood considered as 
shed ; as is very plain from the terms of the institution : and it 
is not improbable that the Apostle here so distinctly mentioned 
both, to intimate that they were to be considered as divided and 
separate, which was the case at his crucifixion, and not after. 
By communion, the Apostle certainly intended a joint communion, 
or participating in common with others, as appears by the words 
immediately following; ' We being many are oae body,' &c. 
Besides that his argument required it, as I have already hinted. 
For he was to convince the Corinthians, to whom he wrote, that 
eating of idol-meats was interpretatively consenting with idolaters, 
and of consequence partaking in common with them, of what they 
were supposed to partake of. And I presume, that it was with 
this particular view, and to make out his whole argument, con- 
sisting of two main points, that the Apostle threw in the words 
of verse the ifth. So then, w may thus far construe the Apo- 
stle's doctrine of the Eucharist to mean, that Christians feeding 
upon the consecrated symbols, in due manner, are supposed 
therein to be joint partakers of, or communicants in, Christ's 
body and blood, whatever that means, and also to be mystically 
united with each other. Now we come to the main point of all, 
namely, what that partaking, or that communion, of our Lord's 
body and blood strictly or precisely signifies. Moderns have been 

viii. Explained and Vindicated, 179 

strangely divided about it, (though it was anciently a very plain 
thing,) and perhaps it may be thought a piece of respect due to 
them, to mention their several interpretations, though we must 
reject all but one, as late devices, and more or less foreign to the 
Apostle's argument. 

1. To say that the communion of our Lord's body and blood 
means the receiving his natural flesh and blood into our mouths, 
under the forms, accidents, or appearances of bread and wine, is 
manifestly a forced and late interpretation ; not heard of for 
eight hundred years or more, and, besides, absurd, contradictory, 
and impossible. If we may trust to our reason or to our senses, 
(and if we may not, what is there that we can trust to 1} the 
bread and wine do remain, after consecration, the same in sub- 
stance as before, changed only as to their uses, relations, or offices. 
Besides, Christ's body broken and blood shed 1700 years ago, are 
no more in that capacity, nor ever will be ; and therefore it is 
absolutely impossible that they should be literally present in the 
Sacrament, or made food to the communicants. To all which 
may be added, that the elements, after consecration, are still 
expressly called bread and wine in this very place, and therefore 
supposed to be what they are called. 

2. To say that the communion of our Lord's body and blood 
means the receiving his natural flesh and blood into our mouths, 
together with the symbols, would be running into the like absurd- 
ities with the former. Christ's body as crucified, and blood as 
spilled, are no more : his body glorified is as far distant as heaven 
and earth, and therefore not present in the Sacrament ; or if it 
were, could not properly be eaten, nor be of use if it could, since 
the ' flesh profiteth nothing.' Besides, the text speaks not of 
two bodies, or bloods, as present in the Sacrament. The symboli- 
cal body and blood (bread and wine) are there present : the rest 
is present only in a figure, or under certain construction. A 
mystical union of Christ's glorified body with our bodies is indeed 
intimated in the text, or may, by just consequence, be inferred from 
it ; but the direct doctrine of the text relates only to the body as 
crucified, and to the blood as shed : and therefore here the proper 
distinctions should be made between the eating Christ's dead body, 

N 2 

480 I Corinthians x. 16, &c. CHAP. 

and the uniting with his living body, (as above 2 ,) as also between 
the express doctrine of the text, and the consequences deducible 
from it by the help of reason, and of other texts compared. 

3. To say that the communion here signifies the eating Christ's 
glorified body by faith, or with the mind, is not a just interpre- 
tation : because whatever is corporeal cannot be literally the food 
of the soul ; as also because what is represented and eaten in 
the Sacrament is not the body glorified, but the body crucified 
and blood shed, which are no more, and which therefore cannot 
be received either with mouth or mind, excepting only in a qua- 
lified and figurative sense. A mystical union indeed (as before 
said) with Christ's glorified body is strengthened or perfected in 
the Eucharist : though that is a doctrine rather insinuated, than 
expressed here : while certainly collected both from the nature of 
the thing, and from divers other texts of the New Testament. 

The three constructions hitherto mentioned have been all 
owing to too strict and servile an adherence to the letter, with- 
out reason, and against reason, and not countenanced by the 
ancients rightly understood. There are some other constructions 
which are faulty in the contrary extreme, receding too far from 
the letter, and degrading the Sacrament into a kind of empty or 
fruitless ceremony. There is the less excuse for so doing, con- 
sidering how highly the Apostle speaks of the Sacrament, both 
in this and the next chapter : for though necessity will justify 
our receding from the letter, as far as such necessity extends, 
yet reason requires that we adhere to it as closely as we may, 
and extremes are always bad. But I proceed to take notice 
of some misconstructions in this way of under-commenting. 

4. Some interpret communion here to mean no more than a 
joint partaking of the outward signs, symbols, or memorials of 
Christ's body and blood. But St. Paul must undoubtedly mean 
a great deal more, by his emphatical expressions ; and his argu- 
ment also requires it, as shall be shewn in due place. He does 
not say, that the Service is a commemoration of Christ's body 
and blood, but a partaking or communion of them a . So likewise, 

1 See above, p. 167, &c. glossae Socini, quandoquidem panem 

. * 'S. Apostolus refragatur penitus et poculum eucharisticam dicat esse 

vin. Explained and Vindicated. i8l 

with respect to the Jews, he does not say that they comme- 
morated the altar, but they were partakers of the altar : and the 
idolaters whom he speaks of did not barely commemorate devils, 
(if they did it at all,) but they were partakers of devils. Besides, 
to interpret the communion of a joint partaking of the symbols, 
or memorials, is inventing a sense too flat and jejune to be 
fathered upon the Apostle ; for indeed it is mere tautology. It 
is no more than saying, that partaking of the bread and wine is 
partaking of the bread and wine. There is good sense in saying, 
that the partaking of one thing is, in just construction, the par- 
taking of some other thing : but to make all sign, and nothing 
signified, or to reckon the outward signs twice over, dropping 
the inward things signified, is unsuitable to the turn of the 
whole passage, and entirely defeats the Apostle's argument. 
The eating of the sacrifices was not again mere eating of sacri- 
fices, but it was, by interpretation, communicating with idolaters : 
and communicating with idolaters was not again communicating 
with idolaters, but it was, in just construction, partaking of 
devils b. Thus we find strong and admirable sense in the 
Apostle's discourse : but in the other way all is dull and insipid. 
Take we the next parallel instance : the joint partaking of the 
Jewish sacrifices was not again the joint partaking of the same 
sacrifices ; but it was partaking of the altar, whatever that 
means : in like manner, a joint partaking of the symbols or 
memorials of bread and wine is not again a joint partaking of 
the same symbols or memorials, but of something else (by the 
Apostle's argument) which they represent, and call to our mind, 
and which in just construction, or in effect, they are. Had 
St. Paul meant only, that the bread which we break is the joint 
eating of the bread, and the cup which we bless is the joint 

communicationem corporis et san- lagius's, well express the sense of 

gninis Christi. Ubi subject! loco, . . the Apostle : 

panem et poculum benedictionis 'Panisidololatriae daemonum par- 

constituit, in praedicato vero, non ticipatio esse monstratur ; . . si cum 

eommemorationem, aut memoriale idololatris de uno pane comedimus, 

corporis aut sanyuinis Christi, sed unum cum illis corpus efficimur. . , 

communicationem ejusdem ponit.' Non potestis et Dei et daemonum 

Calovius de Eucharist, p. 279. esse participes.' Hieronym. Opp. 

b The commentaries under the torn., v. p. 995. ed. Bened. 
name of Jerome, supposed to be Pe- 

1 82 I Corinthians x. 16, &c. CHAP. 

drinking of the cup, why should he have changed the terms 
l>read and cup into other terms, body and blood, instead of using 
the same over again 1 Or if body and blood mean only bread and 
cup, then see what sense can be made of Chap. xi. 27, which 
must run thus : Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this 
cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the bread and cup 
of the Lord. It is not using an inspii'ed Apostle with any 
proper respect, to put such an odd (not to say ridiculous) sense 
upon him. The case is plain, that the four terms, bread, wine, 
body, and blood, have severally their respective meanings, and 
that the two first express the signs, to which the other two 
answer as things signified, and so all is right. Add to this, that 
the eating and drinking in the Eucharist, upon the foot of the 
other construction, would be rendered insignificant : for the 
breaking of the bread, and the pouring out of the wine, would be 
sufficient for a bare representation or memorial of our Lord's 
death : the feeding thereupon adds nothing to the representation, 
but must either signify our receiving something spiritual under 
that corporeal symbol, or signify nothing. And it would appear 
very strange, if the feeding itself should not be symbolical, some 
way or other, as well as the rest ; especially considering that 
other places of Scripture (particularly John vi.) do insist very 
much upon spiritual feeding, and that the quantity of meat and 
drink in the Eucharist has all along been so small, that it might 
be difficult to say what use it could be of as a banquet, unless 
allowed to be significative or symbolical of some spiritual enter- 
tainment received by the communicants c . Upon the whole, 
this fourth interpretation must be rejected, as being altogether 
low and lame, or rather totally repugnant to all the circum- 
stances of text and context. 

5. Others therefore, perceiving that there must be both a sign 
and a thing signified, (or in other words, a corporal manducation, 
and a spiritual one also,) and yet being unwilling to admit of 
any present benefits in the Eucharist, have contrived this turn, 

c Ato tovro yap otire iro\v \afj.0dv- Concil. Nicaen. in Gelas. Cyzicen. 
0/j.fv, a\\' o\iyov, 'Iva yvSififv Sri Labb. et Cossart. torn. ii. p 234. 
OVK ( 

vni. Explained and Vindicated. 183 

that the sacramental feeding shall signify spiritual feeding, yea, 
and spiritual communion with Christ, before, and in, and after the 
Sacrament, but that this spiritual feeding shall mean only the 
receiving Christ's doctrine and promises ; or that the Eucharist 
shall not import anything then received, (more than at other 
times,) but shall be declarative only of what was received before, 
or is to be received then, or after. The design of all which is to 
evade any pretence of receiving graces from above, in or by this 
Sacrament : and this is the scheme which the Socinians com- 
monly take into d . Yea, they sometimes scruple not to own, 
that under spiritual feeding is contained remission of sins, and 
present right to life eternal : but still they will not have it said, 
that God conveys or confers these benefits in or by the Sacra- 
ment, but that we in the Sacrament do declare and testify that 
we are partakers of those benefits e , having brought them with us, 
not receiving them there, more than elsewhere. 

But these fine-spun notions, being only the inventions of men, 
can never be able to stand against the truth of God. St. Paul 
does not say, that the Eucharist is a declaration of communion, 
but a communion : nor does he say, communion with Chi-ist our 

d ' Hinc vero patet usum panis et proinde alanvur et confirmemur, ac 

calicis non ideo Christ! corporis et cibo potuque corpora nostra ad vitam 

sanguinis communionem dici, quod terrenam et corporalem sustentan- 

per istum usum demum communio tur : non quidem quod in hac tantum 

ista fiat ; sed quod per eum com- aotione, Christi carnem et sangui- 

inunio ac societas ista, quae jam est, nem spiritualiter edamus et bibamus 

et esse debet, significetur et de- . . sed quod pia mortis Christi medi- 

claretur. ' Crellius in loc. p. 307. tatione, et vera in eum fide id per- 

Cp. Socin. Quod Re. Polon. p. 701. ficiatur, ac porro etiam extra hunc 

'Hoc ritu testamur nos corpus ritum a nobis fiat, quam diu medi- 

Christi pro nobis crucifixum habere tatio ilia ac fides inde concepta in 

pro spiritual! animae nostrae cibo, animis nostris viget.' Volkelius, p. 

et sanguinem ejusfusum pro salutari 310, alias 687. Cp. Schlicting. cont. 

potu, nosque communionem illius Meisner. pp. 751, 788, 789. 

habere, et sic ad novum foedus per- e ' Hac ceremonia profitemur nos, 

tinere, &c. quae omnia fidem per ea qua dictum est ratione, corpus 

charitatem efficacem postulant.' lia- Christi edere, et sanguinem ejus 

cov. Cat. p. 242. bibere, et sic eorum bonorum quae 

' Panem ilium edendo atque ex po- morte sua cruenta Christus nobis 

culo bibendo palam testamur et pro- peperit (h. e. remissionis peccatorum, 

fitemur nos corpus Christi fractum et vitae sempiternae, quam spe certa 

ac crucifixum pro animae cibo, san- in hoc saeculo veluti praecipimus) 

guinem pro potu habere, quo ad esse participes.' Volkelius, p. 312, 

vitam spiritualem et sempiternam alias 688. 

184 i Corinthians x. i6 } &c. CHAP. 

head, (though that indeed is a remote consequence of the other,) 
but communion of the body and blood of Christ. In the parallel 
instances, eating of idol-meats was not a declaration of what had 
been done before, nor a declaration of what was to be done after, 
(perhaps it was the first time, and might be the last,) but that 
single action was taking part with idolaters, and that amounted 
to partaking of devils. It was so with respect to the Jewish 
sacrifices, the partaking of them was not merely declaring their 
participation of the altar, but it was actual participating at that 
very time, and by that very act. St. Paul's words are express, 
' are partakers of the altar,' (not proclaimers of it,) and his 
argument requires that sense f . Had the Corinthians suspected 
that the Apostle was talking of declarations only, virtual decla- 
rations, they would soon have replied, that they were ready to 
declare to all the world, that they intended no such thing as 
communicating with idolaters, or of devils, by their eating of the 
idol-meats, and that such express counter-declarations would more 
than balance any other. But that would have been protestation 
against fact, and would have availed nothing : for St. Paul had 
plainly told them what the nature of the action was ; viz. com- 
municating with idolaters, and not only so, but partaking of 
devils. Therefore, by analogy and parity of reason, the nature 
of our eucharistical service is an actual partaking of the death of 
Christ with the fruits thereof. 

If there were need of any further arguing in so plain a case, I 
might add, that such kind of declaring as they speak of, (declar- 
ing their spiritual eating,) appears not so modest, or so reverent, 
as one might wish, if we consider what they mean by spiritual 
meat. They commonly intend by it the whole faith and practice 
of a Christian, together with pardon of sins and a right to life 
eternal consequent upon it. So then, their coming to the Lord's 
table to declare their spiritual feeding, what is it but proclaiming, 
before God and man, how righteous, how holy, and how perfect 
they are, and what claims they make on that score : which would 
be much more like to the boasting of a Pharisee, than to the 

f Compare Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, in answer to the same pretence 
about declaring, &c. part i. p. 172, alias 175, &c. 

vin. Explained and Vindicated. 185 

proper penitent behaviour of an humble Christian, appearing 
before God. It may be thought, perhaps, that such declara- 
tions are of great use, because men will be cautious of telling a 
solemn lie in the presence of God, and will of course take care to 
be as good as they declare themselves to be&. But it might be 
rather suspected, that the effect would be quite contrary, and 
such a method of ostentation Avould be much more likely to 
harden men in their sins. 

However, to soften the matter, they sometimes so explain this 
their declaration, as to amount only to a good resolution, or pro- 
mise, for the time to come, or a protestation that they look upon 
a good life as the proper food of their souls. This indeed is 
more modest, but then it is going still further off from the text 
of St. Paul than before : for, in this view, the receiving the 
Sacrament is neither eating anything spiritual, nor so much as a 
declaration of eating, but it is a declaration only of their own 
judgment concerning it. Let them therefore turn this matter 
which way they please, they will never come up to the true 
meaning or force of St. Paul's words. In the meanwhile, we 
readily accept, what they are pleased to allow, that pardon of 
sins, aud present right to life eternal, ought to be looked upon as 
part of the spiritual food : and we think it decent and modest, 
as well as just, to believe, that we receive our spiritual food at 
the altar, from the hands of Christ, and do not bring it thither 
ourselves; especially considering that Christ himself delivered the 
corporal food to the disciples, which was the symbol of spiritual. 
And though we ought to take care to come properly qualified to 
the holy Communion, yet we come not to declare how rich we 
were before, but to deplore our poverty, and to beg fresh relief, 
and new supplies, from above. 

6. Some think it sufficient to say, that the Eucharist imports 
our holding communion or fellowship \vith Christ our head. But 
this interpretation is low and insufficient, expressing a truth, but 

s ' Ideo simul etiam cogitandum ut tails quam priraum evadas, nee 

est tibi, ut talis sis qualem te in hoc committendum ut irritum postea sit 

ritu profiteris ; nee Deo et Christo hoc aniini tui decretum.' Racov. 

mentiaris. Quod si talis nondura Cat. pp. 242, 243. 
sis, id saltern omnino constituendum, 

1 86 i Corinthians x. 16, &c. CHAP. 

not the whole truth. The Apostle's expression is very strong, 
communion of, not communion with, and of Christ's body and 
blood, not simply of Christ. So in the parallel instances : they 
that ate of the idol-meats held communion indeed with the 
idolaters, but were partakers of devils, not with devils : and 
they that ate of the Jewish sacrifices were partakers of the altar. 
Therefore Bishop Patrick well says, with regard to the word com- 
munion in this place, ' In its full signification it denotes, not 
merely our being made of his (Christ's) society, but our having 
a communication of his body and blood to us : so the word 
Koivaveat is rendered, Gal. vi. 6, Phil. iv. 15 V In short, the com- 
munion here spoken of must either mean merely the outward 
profession of Christianity, and then it is an interpretation much 
too low, and is liable to most of the objections with that of 
the preceding article ; or else it means a vital union with 
Christ, as his living members, and then it implies partaking in 
his death, resurrection, &c., and coincides with the common con- 
struction. The greatest fault therefore of this interpretation is, 
that it is loose, general, equivocal ; no explication of the text, 
because not determinate, but darker than the text itself, and 
therefore fitted only to disguise and perplex the Apostle's 
meaning, and to deceive an unwary reader. 

7. Having considered, and, as I conceive, confuted the several 
wrong constructions of St. Paul's words, it is now time to return 
to the true, easy, natural, and ancient * interpretation, before 
hinted, and now to be more largely enforced or confirmed. The 
Eucharist in its primary intention, and in its certain effect to all 
worthy communicants, is a communion of Christ's body broken 
and blood shed, that is to say, a present partaking of, or having 
a part in our Lord's passion, and the reconcilement therein made, 
and the blessed fruits of it. This is plain good sense, and 
undeniable truth. ' The body and blood of Christ are verily and 
indeed received of the faithful : that is, they have a real part 
and portion given them in the death and sufferings of the Lord 
Jesus, whose body was broken and blood shed for the remission 

h Bishop Patrick's Christian Sacrifice, p. 52. 
1 See above, pp. 99, 101, 143. 

vni. Explained and Vindicated. 187 

of sins. They truly and indeed partake of the virtue of his 
bloody sacrifice, whereby he hath obtained eternal redemption for 
us V It is observable tha.t St. Paul, (his own best interpreter,) 
instead of saying, Ye do shew the Lord's body and blood, broken 
and shed, says, ' Ye do shew the Lord's death till he come V 
Which makes it plain, that ' body broken and blood shed' are, in 
this case, equivalent to the single word ' death' with its fruits ; 
and that is the thing signified in our sacramental service. And 
if that be the thing signified, it is that which we partake of, or 
spiritually receive : and we are in this Sacrament ingrafted, as it 
were, into the death of Christ, in much the same sense, and to 
the same effect, as in the other Sacrament we are said to be 'bap- 
tized into his death m ,' and ' planted together in the likeness of 
his death n .' All the difference is that the same thing is repre- 
sented and exhibited, here and there, under different signs or 
symbols. There we have our right and title to the merits and 
benefits of his passion delivered to us under the symbol of water 
inclosing us, as a grave incloses a dead body ; here we have the 
same right and title again delivered under the symbols of bread 
and wine , received by us, and incorporated with us. But of 
the analogy of the two Sacraments, I have spoken before P, and 
need not repeat. Only let it be remembered, that Baptism does 
not only represent our Lord's death, burial, and resurrection, 
but exhibits them likewise in their fruits and virtue, and makes 
the baptized party, if fitly qualified, partaker of them. And as 
there undoubtedly is a near correspondence and analogy between 
the two Sacraments, in their general nature, ends, and uses, we 
may justly argue from one Sacrament to the other ; and the 
argument carries in it, if not the force of demonstration, yet very 
considerable weight. There is this further use in it, that it fur- 
nishes us with a clear and full answer to the objections made 
against the supposition of such and such privileges being con- 
ferred by or annexed to a single act of religion : for if they are 

k Bishop Patrick's Christian Sacri- 1% bvainaKTov Ovtrias Si' TJJ 

fice, p. 53. ^ ijfjifis Tif Xpurrip', Kai 

I Cor. xi. 20. TUV ira.Ori/j.a.Toiii' Kal rfjs Of6rttros, 

m Kom. vi. 3. Gregor. Nazianz. Orat. iii. p. 70. 
n Kom. vi. 5. P See above, ch. vii. p. 138. 

1 88 i Corinthians x. 16, &c. CHAP. 

annexed to or conferred by Baptism, a single act of religion, why 
may they not by the Eucharist also, though a single act ? Such 
objections either strike at both Sacraments, or can really hurt 
neither : or if it be allowed (as indeed it must) that Baptism, 
notwithstanding, has such privileges annexed to it, by the 
express words of Scripture, it must be allowed that the Eucha- 
rist, at least, may have the same. If, for instance, remission of 
sins, sanctification of the Spirit, mystical union with Christ, 
present right to a resurrection and life eternal, are (as they 
certainly are) conferred in and by Baptism, to persons fitly 
qualified ; it is in vain to object, in the case of the Eucharist, 
that those privileges cannot be annexed to or conferred by a 
single act. 

But let us return to our positive proofs, that such blessings 
are annexed to a due receiving of the Holy Communion. This 
passage of St. Paul, rightly considered, is a demonstration of 
it, as I have already intimated. The Socinians themselves, as I 
have before observed, are obliged to allow, that spiritual mandu- 
cation carries with it present remission of sins, and present right 
to everlasting life : and they are pleased to allow further, that 
in the Sacrament (though they will not say, by the Sacrament) 
there may be, or often is, spiritual manducation. Indeed, Smal- 
cius seems to hesitate a little upon it, or comes with great 
reluctance to it ; but after all is forced to submit to so glaring 
a truth. First, he pretends, that we are so far from feeding 
spiritually upon Christ in the Eucharist, that we must have done 
it before, or we are not worthy to come at alii. Well : why may 
we not have done it before, and now much more so ? He is 
pleased, soon after, to allow, that spiritual manducation is a kind 
of constant perpetual act, or habit, supposed in every good 
Clmstian, in the whole course of his life, and in all his actions r . 

i ' Diciinus tantuin abesse, ut in r 'Ut manducatio spiritualis cor- 

coena Domini corpus Christi come- poris, et bibitio sanguinis Christi est 

datur, et sanguis ejus bibatur, ut qui aliquid perpetuum, quod in nobis 

antea Christi corpus spiritualiter non inesse debet, sic in omnibus vitae 

i n and u caver it, manducatione hac pa- nost? - ae factis considerari poterit et 

niscarnali plane indignus sit.' Smalc. debet.' S mule. ibid. p. 340. 
contr. Frantz. p. 336. 

viu. Explained and Vindicated. 189 

Why then not in the sacramental action ? At length, he allows 
it, with some reluctance, even in that also s ; as he could not 
avoid it by his own principles. 

Thus far then we are advanced, even upon the concessions of 
adversaries, that there may be (or that there certainly is, to pious 
and good Christians) a spiritual feeding in the Eucharist, and 
that such spiritual feeding carries in it present remission, and 
present right to life eternal *. Where then do we differ ] Per- 
haps here ; that we say, by the Sacrament, and they, in the 
Sacrament, like as in all other good offices. But we do not say, 
that the Sacrament does it by its own virtue : no, it is God only 
that grants remission, or spiritual rights, whether in the Sacra- 
ment or out of it; and while we assert that he does it in and by 
the Eucharist, we do not presume to say, or think, that he does 
i; not in Baptism also, or in other religious services. What then 
is the point of controversy still remaining 1 It appears to be this 
principally, that we assert the very act of communion (in persons 
fitly disposed) to be spiritual manducation ; a present receiving 
of spiritual blessings and privileges, additional to what was 
before : this they deny, alleging that there are no special benefits 
annexed to the Eucharist u as such, nothing more conferred 

8 'Quia spiritualis manducatio cor- dium : quippe Christi praeceptorum 

pt ris Christi perpetuum aliquid est, officiique nostri pars non postrema ; 

d:ci quidem potest, tune etiam illam uti qui id facere negligat, non plus 

fieri, cum coena Domini celebratur.' juris habeatin Christi corpore, quara 

Sinalc. ibid. p. 340. Petrus habiturus erat communio- 

Schlictingius carries it higher, or nis cum Christo, si pedes sibi la- 
expresses it stronger, though indeed vare volenti praefracte restitisset.' 
he afterwards goes off into the de- Schlicting. contr. Meis. p. 750. 
darative notion, seeming to pre- * See Volkelius above, p. 183. 
f c-r it. n Christian! quia mortem Christi 

'Quid igitur est, inquies, Christi commemorant.etproeagratiasagimt, 

corporis proprie Koivtavia. ? Commune non praesens beneficiuni requirunt/ 

jus est, (at ipsa vox indicat) Christi &c. Smalcius, p. 333. 

corporis pro nobis fracti, et sic bono- 'Nequaquam in eumfinem hie ritus 

rum inde manantium. Sacrum igitur est institutus, ut aliquid ex eo repor- 

panem qui frangunt et comedunt, temus, sed ut jam antea acceptum 

modo digne id faciant, bonorum isto- beneficium commemoremus.' Volke- 

rum participss fiunt ; ut hoc sensu lius de Vera Relig. p. 313, alias 691. 

sacri panis fractio, et comestio cor- 'Nou in huncfinem coenam Domini- 

poris Christi, communio dicatur per cam constitutam esse, ut ex ejus usu 

metonymiam effecti ; quod scilicet aliquemfructumreportemus.' Volke- 

communionis istius causa sit et me- lius, ibid. p. 684. 

190 I Corinthians x. 16, &e. OHAP. 

than what is constantly conferred to good men, at all other 
times, and in all other good offices, or common duties x . Now, 
in defence of our doctrine, we plead St. Paul's authority, who 
asserts, that the Eucharist is actually a communion of Christ's 
body and blood : let them shew, that any common service, or any 
other service, office, or duty, (except Baptism,) is so ; and then 
they will come close to the point. It hath been observed above, 
that eating of idol-meats, knowingly, was ipso facto communica- 
ting with idolaters, and that communicating with idolaters was 
ipso facto partaking of devils, and that the eating of the Jewish 
sacrifices was ipso facto partaking of the altar : therefore also 
receiving the holy Communion, fit dispositions always supposed, 
is ipso facto, (in that very act, and at that present time, by 
that act) partaking of the death of Christ, with the fruits or pri- 
vileges of it. Since therefore the very nature of the act supposes 
it and implies it, (which is more than the nature of every other 
act, service, or duty does,) therefore there is some peculiar force, 
virtue, and efficacy annexed to the Eucharist, above what is 
ordinarily annexed to common duties. Duties, as such, are 
conditions only on our part, applications of men to God, and 
therefore are not properly instruments in the hand of God for 
conveying his graces : but sacraments are applications of God to 
men, and therefore are properly his instruments of conveyance, 
his appointed means or conduits, in and by which he confers his 
graces. Gospel duties are the conditional causes of spiritual 
blessings, while Sacraments are properly the instrumental convey- 
ances. Neither repentance, nor faith, nor even sacraments, con- 
sidered merely as duties, or as acts of ours, are properly channels 
of grace, being, as I said, conditions only : but sacraments 
considered as applications of God to men are properly channels 

* ' Negat Socinus hunc ritum pro- illius causa proprie ritus hie institu- 

prie institutum esse ad nostram ali- tus est.' Schlicting. contr. Meisner. 

quam singularem utilitatem in ne- p. 791 ; cp. 795. 
gotio salutis. Proprie inquam, nam ' Libenter admittimus ritus istiua 

alioquin libenter concedimus, hujus observationera inter bona opera num- 

ritus observationem non minus ad erandam, et cum illis conjung- 

salutem conferre quam reliquorum endam esse.' Schlicting. ibid. p. 

praeceptorum executionein : verum 798. 
haec utilitas et generalis est, et non 

viii. Explained and Vindicated. 191 

of spiritual benefit?. This is a distinction which ought carefully 
to be heeded, for the right understanding of the difference 
between sacraments and duties J. 

Preaching of the word is most like to sacraments in the 
instrumental capacity ; for by the word also God conveys his 
graces. But still inviting, exhorting, or calling men to be recon- 
ciled to God, comes not up to signing and sealing the reconcilia- 
tion : neither is preparing men for the covenant the same thing 
with covenanting. The Eucharist, as hath been noted, is an 
actual communion, wherein God gives and man receives at that 
instant, or in the very act. Such being the nature and use of 
this eucharistical service, in Divine construction, and by Divine 
appointment, it is manifest from thence, that it carries in it the 
force of a promise, or contract 2 , on God's part, that, fit qualifica- 
tions supposed on our part, this service shall never fail of its 
effect, but shall be to every worthy receiver like a deed of con- 
veyance, instrumentally investing him with the benefits of Christ's 
death, for the time being ; and to the end also, if he perseveres 
to the end. ' It is no good argument to say, the graces of God 
are given to believers out of the Sacrament, ergo, not by or in 
the Sacrament: but rather thus; if God's grace overflows some- 
times, and goes without his own instruments, much more shall 
he give it in the use of them. If God gives pardon without the 
Sacrament, then rather also with the Sacrament. For supposing 
the Sacraments, in their design and institution, to be nothing 
but signs and ceremonies, yet they cannot hinder the work of 
God : and therefore holiness in the reception of them will do 
more than holiness alone ; for God does nothing in vain. The 

i See above, p. ii, &c. debite administrantur, quique ilia 

1 ' Verbum Dei quidem comitatur suscipiunt cum ea quam Deus in iis 

etiam aliqua Spiritus Dei efficacia... praerequirit dispositione...Ex nullo 

Verum efficacia ista a Deo prorsus pacto tenetur Deus verbum virtute 

libere dispensatur, et absque ullo sui Spiritus comitari : sacramentis 

pacto et promissione Dei, qua Deus autem ex certa Dei pactione, adest 

ad hos et illos, potius quam alios, virtus divina, per quam gratiam 

ejusmodi gratia donandos, sese ob- quandam salutarem communicant 

strinxerit. Cum Sacramentis autem, omnibus illis qui secundum ordinem 

ex Dei pacto, conjuncta est vis quae- a Deo positum ilia participant.' Le 

dam ilivini Spiritus, per quam agunt Blanc, Thes. p. 676. 
infallibiliter in omnibus iis quibus 

192 I Corinthians x. 16, &c. CHAP. 

Sacraments do something in the hand of God : at least, they are 
God's proper and accustomed time of grace : they are his seasons 
and our opportunity 8 .' 

And now if any one should ask for a catalogue of those 
spiritual privileges, which St. Paul in this place has omitted, our 
Lord himself may supply that omission by what he has said in 
John vi. For, since we have proved, that there is a spiritual 
manducation in the Eucharist, with all worthy receivers, it now 
follows, of course, that what our Lord says in John vi. of spiri- 
tual manducation in the general, is all strictly applicable to this 
particular manner of spiritual feeding ; and is the best explica- 
tion we can any where have of what it includes or contains. It 
contains, I. A title to a happy resurrection : for such as spi- 
ritually feed on Christ, Christ will 'raise up at the last dayV 

2. A title to eternal life : for our Lord expressly says, 'Whoso 
eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life c .' 

3. A mystical union with Christ in his whole Person ; or, more 
particularly, a presential union with him in his Divine nature : 
' He that eateth my flesh, &c. dwelleth in me, and I in him d .' 

4. Iii these are implied (though not directly expressed by our 
Lord in that discourse) remission of sins, and sanctification of 
the Holy Spirit ; of which I may say more in a proper place. 

To return to St. Paul's text, I shall here sum up the true and 
the full sense of it, mostly in Mr. Locke's words 6 , with some few 
and slight alterations. ' They who drink of the cup of blessing, 
which we bless in the Lord's Supper, do they not thereby par- 
take of the benefits purchased by Christ's blood shed for them 
upon the cross, which they here symbolically drink ] and they 
who eat of the bread broken there, do they not partake in the 
sacrifice of the body of Christ, and strengthen their union with 
him, as members of him their head ? For by eating of that 
bread, we, though many in number, are all united, and make 
but one body under Christ our head, as many grains of corn 

Bishop Taylor's Worthy Com- d John vi. 56, 57. 
municant, p. 38. e Locke's Commentary on the 

b John vi. 51. Text, p. 181. 

John vi. 51, 54, 58. 

viii. Explained and Vindicated. 193 

are united into one loaf. See how it is among the Jews, who 
are outwardly, according to the flesh, by circumcision the people 
of God. Among them, they who eat of the sacrifice are par- 
takers of God's table, the altar, have fellowship with him, and 
share in the benefit of the sacrifice, as if it were offered for 
them f . Do not mistake me, as if I hereby said, that the idols 
of the Gentiles are gods in reality, or that the things offered 
to them change their nature, and are anything really different 
from what they were before, so as to affect us in our use of 
them ; no, but this I say, that the things which the Gentiles 
sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God, and I would 
not that you should have fellowship with, and be under the 
influence of devils, as they who, by eating of things offered to 
them, enter into covenant, alliance, and commerce with them. 
You cannot eat and drink with God, as friends at his table in the 
Eucharist, and entertain familiarity and friendship with devils, 
by eating with them, and partaking of the sacrifices offered to 
them.' Such appears to be the force of the whole argument. 
But as there is nothing so plain, but that it may be obscured by 
misconception, and darkened by artificial colourings, so we need 
not wonder if difficulties have been raised against the construc- 
tion here given. And because it may sometimes happen, that 
very slight pretences on one side, if not particularly answered, 
may weigh more with some persons, than the strongest reasons 
on the other, I shall here be at the pains to bring together such 
objections as I have anywhere met with, and to consider them 
one by one. 

f Dr. Felling, in his Discourse of hand, in order to the ends for which 
the Sacrament, (pp. 116, 117, 118,) the sacrifice was designed: they 
well illustrates the case of the Jews, served to make an atonement, they 
as partaking of the altar. I shall cite were effectual to their purposes, they 
a small part : ' There is an expres- were good to all intents, they were 
sion which will make this matter available to the offerers, (as the He- 
clear, in Levit. vii. 18, 'neither shall brew Doctors expound the phrase), 
it be imputed,' &c. "When those sa- This is the true meaning of being 
crificial feasts were regularly cele- partakers of the altar," &c. p. 117. 
brated, they were imputed to the In the next page the learned author 
guests for their good, they were applies the whole very aptly to the 
reckoned advantageous to them, they Eucharist, 
were favourably accepted at God's 

194 I Corinthians x. 16, &c. CHAP. 

Objections answered. 

I. Dr. Whitby, whose comments upon this text, I am sorry to 
say, appear to be little else than laboured confusion, is pleased 
to object as here follows : ' Neither can the sense of the words 
be to this effect ; The cup and bread communicate to us the 
spiritual effects of Christ's broken body, or his blood shed for us, 
though this be in itself a certain truth ; for these spiritual effects 
cannot be shared among believers, so that every one shall have a 
part of them only, but the same benefits are wholly communi- 
cated to every due receiver. See note on ver. 1 6 s.' The learned 
author did well to call our doctrine a certain truth : but he had 
done better, if he had taken due care to preserve to this text that 
true sense, upon which chiefly that certain truth is founded. 
His objection against the spiritual effect being shared, appears to 
be of no weight : for how do we say they are shared 1 We do 
not say that Christ's death is divided into parcels, or is more 
than one death, or that his sacrifice is more than one sacrifice, or 
that it is shared like a loaf broken into parts, as the objection 
supposes : but the many sharers all partake of, and communi- 
cate in one undivided thing, the same death, the same sacrifice, 
the same atonement, the same Saviour, the same God and Lord : 
and here is no dividing or sharing anything, but as the same 
common blessing diffuses itself among many divided persons. 
And what is there amiss or improper in this notion ? The learned 
author himself is forced to allow h , that Kow&via TOV viov avrov, 
communion of his Son', and KOIVWVIU rS>v iraBrniaroav, communion of 
his sufferings J, and Koivmvia pfra TOV narpbs Kal pera TOV viov UVTOV, 

communion with the Father and the Son k , are all so many pro- 
per phrases, to express the communion of many in one and the 
same thing, where the effects are common to those many. And 
he might have added Koivcovla TOV ayiov irvevpaTos, communion of 
the Holy Ghost 1 , and Koiva>via TOV ^vo-T^piov, communion of the 
mystery m , as two other parallel instances, wherein the same 

e Whitby on verse 20, p. 175. k I John i. 3. 

h Whitby, p. 173. 1 i Corinthians xiii. 14. Phil. ii. I. 

' I Cor. i. 9. i Phil. iii. 10. m Eph. iii. 9. 

mi. Explained and Vindicated. 195 

undivided blessings are supposed to be communicated to many, 
in such a sense as we suppose the undivided blessing, privilege, 
atonement of Christ's death to be vouchsafed to worthy commu- 
nicants. And therefore there is no occasion for the low thought, 
that Koivavia here, with respect to the Eucharist, must signify no 
more than the sharing out the consecrated bread and wine among 
the communicants : which is resolving all into sign, and dropping 
the thing signified ; and is sinking the Apostle's admirable sense 
into jejune, insipid tautology ; as I have before observed. The 
Socinians themselves deal more justly and ingenuously with 
St. Paul's text in this place ; as may sufficiently appear by what 
I have qxioted from them in this chapter. 

II. The same learned man makes a further attempt to defeat 
the true sense of this passage, first, by interpreting the partaking 
of the altar, to mean only having communion with God, or own- 
ing him as that God from whom they had received mercies ; and 
next, by interpreting the partaking of devils so as to exclude 
any spiritual influence from devils n . To all which I shall make 
answer in the excellent words of Bishop Burnet : 'If the 
meaning of their being partakers with devils [he should have 
said of devils] imports only their joining themselves in acts of 
fellowship with idolaters, then the sin of this would have easily 
appeared, without such a reinforcing of the matter. ... St. Paul 
seems to carry the argument further :... since those idols were 
the instruments, by which the devil kept the world in subjection 
to him, all such as did partake in their sacrifices might come 
under the effects of that magic, that might be exerted about their 
temples or sacrifices ; ...and might justly fear being brought into 
a partnership of those magical possessions or temptations that 
might be suffered to fall upon such Christians as should associate 
themselves in so detestable a service?. In the same sense it was 

n See Whitby on the place, pp. illustrated by the following lines of 

I 74> I 7S- Tertullian : 'Nemo in castra hos- 

Burnet on the 28th Article, p. tium transit, nisi projectis armis 

428. suis, nisi destitutis signis et sacra- 

P The true meaning of partaking mentis principis sui, nisi pactus 

of devils, or of coming under the simul perire...Quale est enim de 

influence of devils, is very aptly Ecclesia Dei, in diaboli ecclesiam 

O 2 

196 i Corinthians x. 16, &c. CHAP. 

also said, that the Israelites were partakers of the altar. That is, 
that all of them who joined in the acts of that religion, such as 
the offering their peace-offerings, (for of those of that kind they 
might only eat,) all these were partakers of the altar : that is, of 
all the blessings of their religion, of all the expiations, the burnt- 
offerings and sin-offerings, that were offered on the altar, for the 
sins of the whole congregation.... Thus it appears, that such as 
joined in the acts of idolatry became partakers of all that in- 
fluence that devils might have over those sacrifices ; and all that 
continued in the observances of the Mosaical law, had thereby a 
partnership in the expiations of the altar : so likewise all Chris- 
tians who receive this Sacrament worthily, have by their so 
doing a share in that which is represented by it, the death of 
Christ, and the expiation and other benefits that follow it.' 

I cannot too often repeat, that St. Paul is not here speaking 
of external profession, or of outwardly owning the true God, 
(which any hypocrite might do,) but of being real and living 
members, and of receiving vital spiritual influences from Christ ; 
and his argument rests upon itl. The thing may perhaps be 
yet further illustrated from a similar argument, made use of by 
the Apostle in a resembling case. ' Know ye not that your bodies 
are the members of Christ ? shall I then take the members of 
Christ, and make them the members of an harlot ? God forbid. 
What 1 know ye not that he who is joined to an harlot is one 
body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined 
unto the Lord is one spirit r .' 

tendere? de caelo, quod aiunt, in illo et inter nos sumus, ...reprobi et 

coenum ? ... Cur ergo non hujus- infideles, omnesque ejusmodi, Spiri- 

modi etiam daemoniis penetrabiles tus Christi destituti, quamvis sumant 

fiant? nam et exemplum accidit, et participant pan em quern frangimus, 

Domino teste, ejus inulieris quae et benedictionis calicem, ...non fiunt 

theatrum adiit, et inde cum daemonic unum corpus cum Christo et fidelibus, 

rediit. Itaque in exorcismo cum one- sicut ipse Apostolus docet, inquiens : 

rareturirnrnuudusspiritus.quodausus Qui Spiritum Christi non habet, hie 

esset fidelem adgredi ; constanter, non est ejus. Rom. viii. 9. 2 Cor. vi.' 

Justissime quidem, inquit, feci, in Albertin. p. 225. 
meo enim inveni.' Tertullian. de r i Cor. vi. 15, 16, 17. Compare 

Spectac. cap. xxv. xxvi. p. 83. 2 Cor. vi. 14, 15, 16. N. B. The 

i ' Loquitur Apostolus de ejusmodi Apostle is plainly speaking, in all 

communione corporis et sanguinis the three places, of Christians, con- 

Domini, per quam unum corpus cum sidered as true and living members 

vin. Explained and Vindicated. 197 

Here we may observe, that the argument, in both cases, pro- 
ceeds upon the supposition that the Christians whom the Apostle 
speaks to are true and living members of Christ 8 , and of conse- 
quence actual partakers of all the spiritual benefits of such union : 
which union would be entirely broken, and all its privileges for- 
feited, by commencing a contrary union, either with devils in 
one case, or with harlots in the other. The Apostle is not 
speaking of Christians as barely contradicting their outward pro- 
fessions, or committing a logical absurdity, but of their acting 
inconsistently with their internal blessings or privileges. There 
was no natural impossibility of appearing as guests both at God's 
table and the table of devils ; it was as easy to be done, as it 
was easy for men to be deceitful, false, and wicked : but the 
Apostle speaks of a real inconsistency in things ; namely, such as 
lies in the being in league with God and the devil at the same 
time, and retaining the friendship and participation of both *. All 
which shews, that the communicants whom the Apostle speaks 
of, were supposed to be true members of Christ, and of the invi- 
sible Church, in that very action, and so of consequence, thereby 
receiving all such spiritual benefits as that membership implies. 

III. It has been thought some objection to this notion of 
benefits, that men could not be supposed to receive benefits from 
devils ; and therefore the analogy or parallel will not hold, if 
St. Paul be interpreted as admitting or asserting benefits in the 
Eucharist. In reply to which I observe, i. That St. Paul does 
not particularly mention benefits, (though he supposes them all 
the time,) but draws both parts of his parallel in general terms, 
and terms corresponding : communion of Christ's body and blood 

of the internal invisible Church, and * Ou yap dt\ia v/j.a$ KOIVUVOVS 801- 

not merely of the external and visible. poviuv yiveaBat, 6 a.w6ffro\os \eytr 

'Nee ergo dicendi sunt manducare fad 3t'x adi&ufvcav KO! <f>9ifj,vwv 

corpus Christi, quoniam nee in mem- rpo<f>al . . . OVK fij\oyov rpavffrjs 801- 

bris computandi sunt ; quia non pos- povitav a\a./j.(3d.i>fii>, rovs Betas 

sunt esse membra Christi, et membra t\ fiv K0 ^ "fvf iitris Karr)iia/j.t>'ovs 

meretricis. ' Aug. de Civ. Dei, lib. rpo^s. Clem. Alex. Paed. lib. ii. 

xxi. cap. 25. cap. I. pp. 168, 169. 

1 'Corpus nostrum, (id est, caro 'Nonpotestis et Dei et daemonum 

quae cum sanetimonia perseverat, et esse participes.' Pseudo-Hieronym. 

munditia,) membra di.xit esse Christi.' in loc. 
Irenaeus, lib. v. cap. 6. p. 300. 

198 I Corinthians x. 16, &c. CHAP. 

on one side, communion of devils on the other. There the parallel 
rests, and there it answers to the greatest exactness : for as on 
one hand there are supposed influences, influxes, impressions, 
communications from Christ, so on the other hand, there are 
likewise supposed influences, influxes, impressions, communica- 
tions from devils. The parallel here drawn out by the Apostle 
goes no further, and therefore it is strictly just, regular, and 
elegant : but the nature of the thing speaks the rest, that the 
influxes must be of as contrary a kind, as Christ is opposite 
to Belial. 2. St. Paul certainly supposed benefits, and great 
ones, belonging to the Lord's table : otherwise his dissuasive 
against the table of devils had been very lame and insufficient. 
For undoubtedly there were benefits to be expected (temporal 
benefits) on the other side, or else there had been no temptation 
that way, nor any occasion for such earnestness as the Apostle 
uses in the case to dissuade them from it : and if the Apostle 
had not supposed some benefits, of the spiritual kind, to be an- 
nexed to the Eucharist, much superior to all temporal emolu- 
ments, there would have been but very little force in his whole 
dissuasive. To be short; the more beneficial we conceive the 
Sacrament to be, so much the stronger is the Apostle's argument 
for preferring the Lord's table before any other that was incom- 
patible with it : and therefore the supposition of benefits in the 
Eucharist was by no means foreign to the point in view, or wide 
of his purpose, but quite the contrary. For what could be 
more pertinent to his design of warning Christians to have no- 
thing to do with the table of devils, than the intimating to them 
that they would thereby forfeit all the benefits and privileges 
they expected from the table of the Lord ? Upon this foot, 
and this only, there is force and poignancy in what he says ; 
' Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and the table of 
devils V 

IV. It may perhaps be objected further, that the Pagan 

u i Cor. x. 21. I Cor. xi. 27, 29. there be to receive at all? Who 

If there were not great benefits on would run the dreadful risk of being 

one hand, as there is great clanger on guilty of the body and blood of the 

the other, what encouragement could Lord ? 

vin. Explained and Vindicated. 199 

notion of their sacrificial feasts was no more than this, that their 
gods or demons might sometimes condescend to come and feast 
with them, and so those feasts imported some kind of society or 
alliance with demons, but nothing of influxes, communications, 
impressions, &c. To which I answer, that we are not here in- 
quiring what the Pagans supposed, but how the Apostle inter- 
preted their feastings of that kind. The Pagans believed in 
gods, (as they thought,) or good demons ; but the Apostle inter- 
prets all of bad angels or devils. And it is further observable, 
that he speaks not of partaking with devils of such banquets, but 
of partaking, with idolaters, of devils. All the expressions made 
use of by the Apostle declare for this meaning. Kou/oWa roO 
o-cb^aroy, is partaking of body, not with body. Koivcovia TOV 
is partaking of blood, not with blood. Koivavla TOV 
, is partaking of the altar, not with the altar. In 
like manner, Koivwia T>V batfuoviuv must mean partaking of de-. 
vils, not with devils v . For, in truth, the communicants in the 
idol-sacrifices were joint partakers, with idolaters, of devils, as 
Christian communicants are joint partakers, with Christians, of 
Christ. Thus the analogy is duly preserved, and the comparison 
answers to the greatest exactness. 

I may here briefly take notice, in passing, that what concerns 
the communion or participation of devils, has been very minutely 
examined among some learned Divines abroad, within these 
thirty years last past. Gottofr. Olearius, a learned Lutheran of 
Leipsic, opened the subject in a Dissertation on i Cor. x. 21, 
printed A. D. 1709; reprinted in 1712. The design was to 
explain the Pagan notion of the communion of their demons, 
and from thence to illustrate the communion of Christ's body 
and blood in the Eucharist, as taught by the Apostle. Some 
years after, another learned Lutheran, in a treatise written in 

v An ancient writer, of the third est, non est jam Dei, sed idoli : quae- 

century, well expresses this matter : dum in cibum sumitur, sumentem 

'Quantum enim ad creaturam per- daemonic nutrit, non Deo, convi- 

tineat, omnis munda est : sed cum vam ilium simulacro reddendo, non 

daemoniis immolata fuerit, inquinata Christo.' Novatian. de Cib. Judaic, 

est tarn diu quam diu simulacris cap. 7. 
offeratur. Quod mox atque factum 

2OO I Corinthians x. 16, &c. CHAP. 

the German language, pursued the same hypothesis, and met 
with good acceptance among many. But in the year 1*728, 
Mr. Eisner of Utrecht took occasion to animadvert upon it w , 
blaming Olearius for pushing the point too far, in favour of the 
Lutheran doctrine concerning the Eucharist, and for maintaining 
too gross a notion of sacramental manducation. Others have 
endeavoured to defend or palliate Olearius's doctrine, and re- 
flect upon Eisner, as too severe or disrespectful in his censure, 
and as straining things to the worst sense x . All I shall observe 
upon the dispute is, that both sides appear to agree in three 
particulars : i. That the idolaters held communion with each 
other, by eating of the same sacrifices ; to which answers, in the 
analogy, the communion of Christians with each other, by and 
in the Eucharist. 2. That the idolaters held communion with 
devils by feasting at the table of devils : to which answers o\ir 
holding communion with Christ in the Eucharist. 3. That the 
devils with whom they so held communion, had thereby some 
power or influence over them : to which answer the Divine influ- 
ences upon true and worthy communicants in the Eucharist. 

V. There is yet another objection worth the considering, be- 
cause it seems to strike at the main grounds upon which we have 
proceeded in explaining the Apostle's doctrine in this chapter. 
It is suggested, that 8mp6viov in that place does not signify 
devil y, but either a good demon, or something imaginary, a mere 
nonentity : and this is grounded partly upon the consideration 
that the Pagans could never intend to sacrifice to devils, and 
partly upon St. Paul's allowing an idol to be nothing. The 
reader may find this suggestion abundantly confuted, in Whitby 
and Wolfius upon this chapter ; and therefore I shall here con- 
tent myself with briefly hinting as follows : i. That the word 
v, commonly 2 in the New Testament, does signify some 

w Eisner. Observat. Sacr. torn. ii. z A late learned writer very acute- 

p. 108. ly as well as justly observes, that the 

* Wolfius, Curae Cr!t. in I Cor. x. sacred penmen, when speaking their 

21. p. 461. Mosheim. in Praefat. ad own sense, and not reporting the 

Cudworth de Coena. words of others, do always use the 

y See Le Clerc in loc. in his Sup- word Sainiviov in the bad sense. Dr. 

plement to Hammond, p. 338. Engl. Warren, part i. p. 75. part ii. p. 7, 

edit. See. 

vin. Explained and Vindicated. 201 

evil spirit, as in the many cases of demoniacs therein mentioned, 
besides other instances. 2. That in this place of St. Paul, the 
word ought to be so interpreted, in conformity to Deuteronomy 
xxxii. 17, which St. Paul appears to have had in his eye, 'They 
sacrificed unto devils, not to God ;' which Le Clerc himself 
(who raises the objection which I am now answering) interprets 
of evil spirits a . 3. That St. Paul speaks not of what the 
heathens intended, or had in view, but of the real nature, ten- 
dency, or consequence of their idolatry. 4. That though St. Paul 
knew that idols, whether understood of statues and images, or 
of the deities supposed to reside in them, were really nothing, 
(as having either no being b, as many had not, or no divinity c , 
and were not capable of making any physical change in the 
meats, which were the good creatures of God; yet he knew 
withal, that evil spirits suggested to men those idolatrous prac- 
tices, and resided in those images, and assisted in those services, 
personating those fictitious deities, and drawing all those adora- 
tions, in the last result, to themselves d : therefore St. Paul cautions 
the Corinthians against putting themselves into the power and 
possession of those evil spirits, which they were not before aware 
of e . 5. There can be no sense or no force in St. Paul's argu- 
ment, if we interpret his words either of good demons or of mere 
nothings : for it would sound very odd to say, I would not have 
you partakers of good angels ; or of nothings, that is, no partakers ; 
and again, Ye cannot partake of the Lord's table, and the table 
of good angels or table of nonentities. Besides that the Apostle 

a "EBvffav Soi/xovt'ofs /ecu ov > scilicet, daemones.' Tertull. de Spec- 

Deut. xxxii. 17. Vid. Cleric, in loc. tac. cap. x. p. 77. 

item in Levit. xvii. 7. Cacodaemoni- 'Non quod idolum sit aliquid, 

bus. See also Baruch iv. 7. (ut Apostolus ait,) sed quod quae 

b Such as personalized qualities, faciunt, daemoniis faciunt, consisten- 

mere abstract ideas ; as mercy, jus- tibus scilicet in consecrationibus idol- 

tice, faith, truth, concord, health, orum, sive mortuorum, sive (ut pu- 

fortune, &c, tant) deorum. Propterea igitur, quo- 

c As sun, moon, stars, &c. niam utraque species idolorum con- 

d 'Scimus nihil esse nomina mor- ditionis unius est, dum mortui et dii 

tuorum, sicut et ipsa simulacra unum sunt, utraque idololatria ab- 

eorum ; sed non ignoramus qui sub stinemus.-.quia non possumus coe- 

istis nominibus, institutis simulacris nam Dei edere, et coenam daemoni- 

operentur et gaudeant, et divinita- orum.' Tertull. ibid. cap. xiii. p. 

tern uientiantur, nequam spiritus 79. 

2O3 1 Corinthians x. 16, &c. CHAP. 

was obviating or refuting that very objection about an idol's being 
nothing ; allowing it in a physical sense, but not in a moral one ; 
allowing it of the klol considered in itself, but not of what it led 
to, and terminated in. Whatever men might think of bare idols, 
yet evil spirits, which promoted and accepted that idolatrous 
worship, were real beings, and very pernicious, many ways f , to 
the worshippers, and to as many as were partners with them, 
either formally or in just construction. In this light, the Apostle's 
argument is clear and solid, and his sense strong and nervous ; 
countenanced also by other Scriptures and the whole stream of 

VI. There are yet other objections, of a slighter kind, which 
I may here throw together, and briefly answer, that no further 
scruple may remain. A learned man very lately ?, in his Latin 
Notes upon Cudworth's treatise on the Sacrament, and in his 
Preface to the same, has taken a great deal of pains to explain, 
(should I say T) or rather to perplex and obscure the Apostle's 
argument in this chapter, and to turn it off to a different 
meaning from what I have been pleading for. His reason, or 
motive, for doing it, appears to be, to make it square the better 
with the Lutheran notion of the corporal presence in the Eucha- 
rist. He takes it for granted that both good and bad do equally 
receive the Lord's body and blood, (which is indeed the natural 
and necessary consequence of their other principles,) and there- 
fore he cannot admit that the communion here spoken of should 
be understood of benefits, lest those benefits also should be 
supposed common to both, which is palpably absurd. He frankly 
enough discovers where his main scruple lies h ; and then pro- 

t Wolfius well distinguishes, in his est, distinguit a Saiuon'oiy. tanquam 

Comments on this text, pp. 459, 460. quae vere existant, et ex cultu prae- 

' Non tarn hie quaeritur, quid genti- stito fructum percipiant, in perniciem 

libus de deastris suis persuasum fue- sacrificantium redundaiitem ; quem- 

rit, quam quod illis persuasum esse admodum et ol Qvovrts sacra sua 

debuerit, quidve ex rei veritate de faciant ea intentione, ut cum deastris 

illis sit judicandum : posterius hoc conjungantur.' 

innuit Apostolus, et testatum adeo 8 Joannes Laurentius Moshemius, 

facit, cultum ilium superstitiosum et Jenae, 1733. 

a mails daemonibus profectum esse, h 'Quidsentiamdeinterpretatione 

et in illorum societatem pertrahere hac verborum S. Pauli, itemque de 

. . . Apostolus rb fTSw\oi> quod nihil argumento quod ex illis elicit vir doc- 

viii. Explained and Vindicated. 203 

ceeds to invent reasons, or colours, to support it. He pleads 
that St. Paul, in this place, mentions no distinction between 
worthy receivers and unworthy, but seems rather to make what 
he speaks of common to both ; for he inserts no exception, or 
salvo, as he ought to have done, had his words been intended 
of receiving benefits i, &c. To which I answer : i . That there 
was no occasion for making any express distinction : it was 
sufficient to leave it to every one's good sense tacitly to supply. 
The Apostle speaks of it according to what it was in the general, 
and in God's design, and in its primary intention, and what it 
always would be in the event, if not rendered fruitless through 
some default of the communicants k : but as the real sacrifice of 
Christ's death, with the benefits thereof, was to extend no further 
than to persons qualified for it, and not to the impenitent; so 
every man's own reason would readily suggest to him, without 
a monitor, that the application of that sacrifice could not be of 
wider extent than the sacrifice itself. 2. Add to this, that 
nothing is more usual in Scripture than to omit such exceptions 
as common sense might readily supply ; partly for the sake of 
brevity or elegancy, and partly for the avoiding impei-tinence or 
offence. How often are the benefits of Baptism spoken of in 
general and absolute terms, without any excepting clause with 
respect to unworthy partakers. It was needless to insert any ; 
for Christians understood the terms of their Baptismal covenant, 

tissimus (Cudworthus) ad opinionem Reformatos recepta est, excepisset 

suam probandam, in praefatione ape- PaulushauddubiedegeneresCliristia- 

riam. . . Hie monuisse satis erit, pre- nos ex illis qui Christi compotes fiunt 

mi ab eo vestigia praecipuorum re- in S. Coena, dixissetque : Nostisne 

formati coetus doctorum. &c. .. .velle eos homines, in quibus castus est 

enim hos notum est, ideo S. Coenam animus et vera fides, corporis et san- 

a Servatore nostro potissimum esse guinis Christi compotes fieri?' Mo- 

institutam, ut sancti homines, qui ad shem. ibid. p. 31. Cp. Gerhard, et 

earn accedunt, cum Christo Servatore Albertin. Respon. p. 225. 

suoarctiusconjungantur, etbeneficio- k Chrysostom is very clear on thig 

rum hominibus ab eo partorum red- head, in Matt. Horn. Ixxxiii. p. 788. 

danturparticipes: nos verorepudiare, Bened. ed. And so indeed are all 

qui omnes homines, sive probi sint, the ancients, when rightly under- 

sive improbi, corporis et sanguinis stood. None of them ever imagined 

Domini vere fieri compotes in S. that the 'res sacramenti,' the thing 

Coena statuimus.' Moshem, in Notis signified, was received at all by 

ad cap. iv. sect. a. p. 30. the unworthy, either spiritually or 

' ' Si vera esset sententia, quae inter orally. 

204 i Corinthians x. 16, &c. CHAP. 

and did not want to be told perpetually, that Simon Magus and 
other the like wretches, though baptized, had no part in them. 
Many times does St. Paul remind Christians of their bodies being 
the members of Christ, or temple of God, or temple of the Holy 
Ghost \ making no exception at all for corrupt Christians : he 
thought it best to omit invidious exceptions ; not doubting but 
that such plain things would be tacitly understood by every one, 
without his naming them. Once indeed, after he had told the 
Corinthians of Christ being in them, he adds, ' except ye be 
reprobates m .' But certainly it was neither necessary nor proper 
to be perpetually inculcating an invidious and grating reflection. 
The persons whom he wrote to, might not always be dull enough 
to want it, or bad enough to deserve it ; a softer kind of address 
might be both more acceptable to them, and more effectual to 
incite them to all goodness. There is therefore no force at all 
in the negative argument drawn from St. Paul's omitting to 
make an express exception to the case of unworthy communi- 
cants in i Cor. x. 16 ; or however, he abundantly supplied it in 
the next chapter, and needed not to do it twice over in the same 
Epistle, and within the compass of forty verses. 

But the learned Mosheim presently after subjoins another 
little plea n , to add weight to the former. He asks, why should 
the Apostle so distinctly mention the communion both of the 
body and of the blood, if he intended no more than the fruits of 
Christ's death ? Might not the single mention of his death or of 
its fruits have sufficed 1 To which we might justly answer, by 
asking the same question : What occasion could there be, upon 
his own principles, for distinctly mentioning both body and blood] 
Might not body alone have sufficed, especially considering how 

I i Cor. iii. 16, 17; vi. 15-20. docere voluisset, mortis Christi fruc- 
2 Cor. vi. 1 6. turn ad eos pervenire qui S. Coena 

m 2 Cor. xiii. 5. fruerentur ? Suffecisset ad bane rem 

II ' Deinde vir divines distincte cor- exprimendam, si generatim dixisset : 
poris et sanguinis Christi participes minime vos praeterit, in Christi et 
fieri dicit eos, qui poculum benedic- mortis ejus couimunionem pervenire, 
turn, et panem qui frangitur, accipe- quibus poculum consecratum etpanis 
rent in S. Coena. Quid distincta hac fractus in S. Coena exhibetur. Mo- 
mentione tarn corporis quam sangui- shein. ibid. p. 31. Cp. Gerhard, et 
nis Christi opus fuisset, si hoc tantum Albertin. Respon. p. 225. 

viii. Explained and Vindicated. 205 

doubtful a point it has been thought, whether a glorified body 
has properly any blood in it or no ? The learned author 
might better have waved an objection which recoils so strongly 
upon his own hypothesis. To answer more directly, we say, 
upon our principles, that the distinct mentioning both of the 
body and the blood was exceeding proper, and very significant ; 
because it shews that our Lord is considered in the Eucharist 
according to the state he was in at his crucifixion : for then only 
it was, that his body and blood were separate ; one hanging on 
the cross, the other spilled upon the ground. That body and that 
blood are commemorated in the Eucharist, the body broken, and 
the blood shed : therefore St. Paul so distinctly mentioned both, 
lest Christians should think (as indeed, in late and dark ages, 
Christians have thought) that the words of the institution, 
though express for broken body, and blood shed upon earth, 
should be interpreted to mean his glorified body in heaven. 
St. Paul very justly followed the style of the institution, our 
Lord's own style : and by that he shewed, that he was speaking 
of the separation of the body and blood, which in reality was the 
death of our Lord, or seen only in his death, and consequently 
such manner of speaking directly pointed to the death of our 
Lord, and to the fruits or benefits arising from it. Mr. Mosheim 
goes on to make some slight objections to Dr. Cudworth's just 
notion of the pai*takers of the altar, as sharing the benefits or 
expiations thereof. It would be tedious to make a particular 
reply to every little objection which a pregnant wit can raise, 
and therefore I shall only say this : either he must understand 
it of a real communion of and with that God, whose altar it 
was, and then it implies benefits of course ; or he must under- 
stand it only of external declarations or professions, such as 
hypoci-ites might make, and then it will be hard to shew how that 
agrees Avith the symbol of eating, which means receiving some- 
thing, (not giving out declarations,) and is plainly so understood, 
not only in John vi., but also in Heb. xiii. 10, where eating of 
an altar is spoken of. Sanguine Hist, of the Eucharist, part ii. cap. 6. 
D. N. Jesu Christi. Cp. 1'Arroque, p. 268. 

2o6 1 Corinthians x. 16, &e. CHAP. 

Mr. Mosheim says no more in his Notes : but in his Preface, 
written afterwards, he pursues the same argument ; and there he 
endeavours to invalidate the other parallel drawn from partaking 
of devils. He will not be persuaded? that the idolaters did really 
sacrifice to evil spirits : but it is certain they did ; though they 
intended quite otherwise. And he will not allow that they were 
partakers of devils, because an idol is nothing : which has been 
abundantly answered before. I shall only add, that this learned 
writer was not perhaps aware, that he has been enforcing the 
objection of the idolaters, and labouring to elude St. Paul's answer 
to it, in contradiction to the Apostle's clear and express words. 
St. Paul granted that an idol physically was nothing, but that 
morally and circumstantially it stood in quite another view : for, 
though an idol was nothing; yet a devil, under the name or 
cover of an idol, was a real thing, and of very dangerous conse- 
quence, to make alliance with. But I proceed. 

When this learned gentleman comes to propose his own inter- 
pretation of the whole passage, he does it in such an intricate 
and confused manner, as discovers it at once to be unnatural and 
forced. He first breaks the coherence of it, in a very particular 
way, and owns that he does so<l. Then he proceeds to speak of 
St. Paul's abrupt and rapid manner of writing, and of his omit- 
ting many things for an interpreter to supply, (though before he 
would not allow him to omit a needless exception, which nobody 
almost could miss of,) and of his jumping to a conclusion, before 
he had sufficiently opened his premises 1 ". Could one desire a 

P ' Nunquam inihi persuaserim, cumque res ipsa testetur, nullam esse 

sanctum hominem id sibi velle, pro- cognationem et affinitatem cummati 

fan us vere mails geniis, aut deastris 16 et 17 cum consequente comma te 

immolare, quae iminolarent : etenim 18, reliquum est, ut constituamus, 

haec sententia pugnaret cum eo quod divellendum esse hoc posterius com- 

paulo ante largitus erat Corinthiis, ma a prioribus binis, novamque ab 

deastrum nihil, aut commentitium eo partem orationis sancti bominis 

esse aliquid : si nihil est deaster, inchoandam esse,' &c. Moshem. in 

quomodo vere sacrificari potest illi Praefat. 

afiquid V Moshem. in Praefat. T 'Praecisam et concitatam esse 

i ' Exerceant, quibus placet, inge- inultis in locis S. Pauli disputati-: 

mum, experianturque, num demon- onem, et multa interdum ab eo omitti 

strare queant haec apta esse inter se, quae interpretis meditatione ac in- 

ac cohaerentia ? Quae cum ita sint, genio suppler! debent, quo perfectam 

viii. Explained and Vindicated. 207 

more sensible or more affecting token of the irresistible strength 
of the ancient and prevailing construction than this, that the 
acutest wit, joined with uncommon learning, can make no other 
sense of the place, but by taking such liberties with sacred Writ, 
as are by no means allowable upon any known rules of just and 
sober hermeneutics 1 I shall dwell no longer on this learned 
gentleman's speculations ; which, I am willing to hope, are not 
the sentiments of all the Lutherans. They are confronted, in 
part, by the very learned Wolfius, as I observed above : and I 
am now going to take notice of the moderate sentiments of 
Baron Puffendorff (who was an able divine, as well as a consum- 
mate statesman) in his latest treatise, left behind him ready 
for the press, written in Latin, and printed in 16958. He 
first candidly represents the principles of the Reformed, and 
next passes a gentle censure. 

' Some say [meaning some of the Reformed] that... we must 
not believe the bread and wine to be a naked symbol, but a 
communication, or mean by which we come into participation of 
the body and blood of Christ, as St. Paul speaks, I Cor. x. 16. 
But of what sort that communion or communication is, whether 
physical or moral, may be very well gathered from that very 
place of St. Paul. By a physical communion, or participation, 
must be understood the conjunction of two bodies, as of water 
and wine, of meal and sugar : but by a moral one is meant, 
such as when anything partakes of the virtue and efficacy of 
another, and in that respect is accounted the same with the 
other, or is connected with it. As among the Jews, they who 

demonstratio formam adipiscatur, ne- exhibere volunt, addere passim quae- 

minem in scriptis istis versatum prae- dam debent et interjicere, ad ea plane 

terit. Id hoc etiam in loco memi- tollenda quae intelligentiam morari 

nisse decet, quo divinus vir, sacro possunt.' Moshem. ibid. 

elatus fervore, et incredibili Corin- ' Jus feciale divinum : sive de 

thios emendandi studio accensus, ad Consensu et Dissensu Protestantium, 

demonstrationis conclusionem pro- exercitatio posthuma. ' Lubecae, 

perat potius quam pergit, nee plura 1695. 

exprimit verbis quam summa postulat The Divine feudal Law : or Means 

necessitas ad vim ejus capiendam. for the uniting of Protestants. Trana- 

Quare qui rudiorum captui consulere, lated from the original by Theophilua 

et universam argumentationem ejus Dorrington, 1703. 
nervis et partibus suis cohaerentem 

2o8 I Corinthians x. 16, &c. CHAP. 

did eat of the flesh of the victim were made partakers of the 
altar ; that is, of the Jewish worship, and of all the benefits 
which did accompany that worship. So also, they who did eat 
of things sacrificed to idols were partakers of devils ; not for that 
they did eat the substance of the devils, but because they 
did derive upon themselves the guilt of idolatry. From all 
which things we may learn to understand the words of the in- 
stitution in this sense This bread eaten by the faithful, in the 
ceremony of this Supper, this wine also therein drank by such, 
shall have the same virtue and efficacy, as if you should eat the 
substance itself of my body, and drink the very substance of my 
blood. Or, this bread is put in the stead of the sacrificed flesh, 
this wine is in the stead of the sacrificed blood ; whereby the 
covenant between God and men, having me for the mediator of 
it, is established. Nor indeed are such sort of expressions (im- 
porting an equivalence or substitution) uncommon, whether in 
holy Scripture or in profane writers. For example : " I have 
made God my hope *." Elijah was the " chariots of Israel, and the 
horsemen thereof"." "Woman, behold thy son ; son, behold thy 
mother x ." " He that doth the will of my Father, the same is my 
brother, and sister, and mother y." It is said of the enemies of 
the cross of Christ, " that their belly is their god z ." So in Virgil 
we have the like phraseology, " Thou shalt be to me the great 

' But in articles of faith, it is safer to follow a naked simplicity, 
than to indulge the fancy in pursuit of subtilties. And it has 
been observed, that while the reins have been left too loose to 
human reason, in this article of the Lord's Supper, the other 
mysteries also of the Christian religion have be tampered with, 
so that by degrees Socinianism is at length sprung up. But if 
both sides would but sincerely profess, that in the Lord's Supper 
Christ's body and blood are verily and properly eaten and 
drank a , and that there is a participation of the benefits by 
him purchased, all the controversy remaining is only about the 

* Job xxxi. 24. u 2 Kings ii. 12. * John xix. 26, 27. 

i Matt. sii. 50. * Phil. iii. 19. 

We say, ' Verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful.' 

YIII, Explained and Vindicated. 209 

manner of eating and drinking, and of the presence" of Christ's 
body and blood, which both sides confess to be above the reach 
of human capacity : and so they make use of reasonings, where 
is no room for reason V So far this very judicious writer, a 
moderate Lutheran, and a person of admirable sagacity. I shall 
hereupon take the liberty to observe, that if the supposed cor- 
poral presence were but softened into corporal union, and that 
union understood to be of the mystical or moral kind, (like to 
that of man and wife making one flesh, or all true Christians, at 
any distance, making one body,) and if this union were reckoned 
among the fruits of Christ's death, received by the faithful in the 
Eucharist, then would everything of moment be secured on all 
sides : and the doctrine of the Eucharist, so stated, would be 
found to be altogether intelligible, rational, and scriptural, and 
confirmed by the united verdict of all antiquity. 

As to Lutherans and Calvinists, however widely they may 
appear to differ in words and in names, yet their ideas seem all 
to concentre (as often as they come to explain) in what I have 
mentioned. The Calvinists, for example, sometimes speak of 
eating Christ's body and blood by faith, or by the mind ; and yet 
they seem to understand nothing more than a kind of moral, 
virtual, spiritual, or mystical union , (such as bodies at a dis- 
tance may have,) though perhaps they do not always explain it 
so happily as might be wished. On the other hand, the Lu- 
therans when pressed to speak plainly, deny every article almost 
which they are commonly charged with by their adversaries. 
They disown assumption of the elements into the humanity of 
Christ d , as likewise augmentation 6 , and impanation f ; yea, and 
consubstantiation -, and concomitancy h : and, if it be asked, at 

b Puffendorf. Eng. edit. sect. Ixiii. e Pfaffius, p. 451, &c. Buddaeus, 

pp. 211, 712, 213. Lat. edit. sect. Miscellan. Sacr. torn. ii. pp. 81, 

Ixiii. pp. 227, 228, 229. 82. 

c Vid. Albertin. pp. 230, 231. f Pfaffius, p. 453. Buddaeus, ibid. 

Pet. Martyr, in i Cor. xii. 12, 13. p. 83. Deylingius, Observ. Miscell. 

p. 178. p. 249. 

d Vid. Pfaffius, Dissertat. de Con- s Pfaffius, p. 453, &c. Buddaeus, 

secrat. Eucharist, p. 449, &c. Bud- idid. p. 84. Deylingius, ibid, 

daeus, Miscellan. Sacr. torn. ii. pp. h Pfaffius, ibid. p. 459. Buddaeus, 

80, 8 1. ibid. pp. 85, 86. 


Remission of Shis CHAP. 

length, what they admit and abide by, it is a sacramental union > ; 
not a corporal presence, but as a body may be present spiritually i. 
And now, what is a sacramental union, with a body spiritually 
present, .while corporally absent ? Or what ideas can any one 
really have under these terms, more than that of a mystical or 
moral union, (such as Baron Puffendorf speaks of,) an union as 
to virtue and efficacy, and to all saving intents and purposes ? 
So far both parties are agreed, and the remaining difference may 
seem to lie chiefly in words and names, rather than in ideas, 
or real things k . But great allowances should be made for the 
prevailing prejudices of education, and for a customary way of 
speaking or thinking on any subject. 


Of Remission of Sins conferred in tJte EUCHARIST. 

THIS is an article which has been hitherto touched upon only 
as it fell in my way, but will now require a particular discussion : 
and that it may be done the more distinctly and clearly, it will 
be proper to take in two or three previous propositions, which 
may be of use to prevent misconceptions of what we mean, and 

1 Pfaffius, p. 461, &c. Buddaeus, sanguis Christi (modo quern ratio 

ibid. p. S'i, &c. comprehendere nequit) uniatur : ut 

J 'Quinimoet corporalis praesentia cum illo pane corpus Christi una 

negatur, quae tamen ea ratione ad- manducatione sacramentali, et cum 

struitur, ut corpus Christi vere, licet illo vino sanguinem Christi una 

spiritualiter praesens esse credatur. bibitione sacramentali, in sublimi 

Caeterum cum corpus Christi ubique mysterio sumamus, manducemus, et 

junctam divinitatem habeat, ea et in bibamus.' Buddaeus, ibid. pp. 86, 

sacra coena praesens est ; singulari 87. 

tamen et incomprehensibili ratione, k ' Testatur Zanchius, se audivisse 

quae omnes imperfectionesexcludit.' quendam non vulgarem Lutheranum 

Pfaffius, p. 462. 'Praesentiam realem dicentem, se et alios suos non ita di- 

profitemur, carnalem negamus.' Puf- cere corpus Christi a nobis corpo- 

fend. sect. 92. raliter manducari, quasi illud Christi 

'Unicus itaqtie saltern isque verus corpus os et corpus nostrum attingat 

et genuinus praesentiae realis super- (hoc enim falsum esse) sed tantum 

est modus, unio sacramentalis ; quae propter sacramentalem unionem, qua 

ita comparata est, ut, juxta ipsius id quod proprie conipetit pani, attri- 

Servatoris nostri institutionem, pani buitur etiatn quodammodo ipsi cor- 

benedicto tanquam medio divinitus pori Christi. In hisce ergo conveni- 

ordinato corpus, et vino benedicto mus.' Sam. Ward. Theolog. Deter- 

tanquam medio divinitus ordinato minat. p. 113. 

ix. conferred in the Eucharist. 2H 

to open the way to what we intend to prove. The previous pro- 
positions are : i. That it is God alone who properly confers re- 
mission. 2. That he often does it in this life present, as seems good 
unto him, on certain occasions, and in sundry degrees. 3. That he 
does it particularly in Baptism, in a very eminent degree. These 
several points being premised and proved, it will be the easier after- 
wards to shew that he does it also in the Eucharist, as likewise to 
explain the nature and extent of the remission there conferred. 

i. I begin with premising, that God alone properly confers 
remission of sins : whatever secondary means or instruments may 
be made use of in it, yet it is God that does it. ' "Who can for- 
give sins but God only 1 ?' We read, that 'it is God that justi- 
fieth m .' Justification of sinners comes to the same with remis- 
sion : it is receiving them as just ; which amounts to acquitting, 
or absolving them, in the court of heaven. For proof of this, I 
refer the reader to Bishop Bull's Harmonia Apostolica n , that I 
may not be tedious In a very plain case. The use I intend 
of the observation, with respect to our present subject, is, 
that if we are said to eat or drink, in the Eucharist, the benefits 
of Christ's passion, (among which remission of sins is one,) or if 
we are said to apply those benefits, and of consequence that remis- 
sion, to ourselves, by faith, &c., all this is to be understood only 
of our receiving such remission, and partaking of those benefits, 
while it is God that grants and confers, and who also, properly 
speaking, applies every benefit of that kind to the faithful com- 
municant. And whether he does it by his word or by his ordi- 
nances, and by the hands of his ministers, he does it however : 
and when such absolution, or remission, is real and true, it is 
not an human absolution, but a divine grant, transmitted to us 
by the hands of men administering the ordinances of God. God 
has sometimes sent his extraordinary grants of that kind by 
prophets and other officers extraordinary : and he may do the 
like in a fixed and standing method, by his ordinary officers or 
ministers duly commissioned thereunto P. But whoever he be that 

1 Mark ii. 7. Rom. viii. 33. n Bull, Harmon. Apostol. 

Dissert, i. cap i. 2 Sam. xii 13. Compare Eccl us. xlvii. u. 

P Matt. xvi. 19 ; xviii. 16, 17, 18. John xx. 22, 23. Acts xxii. 16. 

P 2 

212 Remission of Sins CHAP. 

brings the pardon, or who pursuant to commission notifies it to 
the party in solemn form, yet the pardon, if true, is the gift of 
God, and it is God alone, or the Spirit of God, that applies it to 
the soul, and converts it to spiritual nutriment and increase. 
This, I presume, may be looked upon as a ruled point, and needs 
not more words to prove it. 

2. The next thing I have to premise is, that God often confers 
remission, or justification, for the time being, in this life present, 
with certain and immediate effect, according to the degree or 
extent of it. All remission is not final, nor suspended upon what 
may come after : but there is such a thing as present remission, 
distinct from the final one, and which may or may not continue 
to the end, but is valid for the time being, and is in its own 
nature (no cross circumstances intervening) irrevocable. Let us 
come to particulars, in proof of the position. Jesus said unto 
the sick of the palsy, ' Son, thy sins are forgiven thee 1.' There 
was present remission of some kind or other, to some certain 
degree, antecedent to the day of judgment, and of force for the 
time being. So again, our Lord's words, 'Whose soever sins 
ye remit, they are remitted r ,' &c. ; do plainly suppose and imply 
a present remission to some degree or other, antecedently to the 
great day, and during this present life. ' All that believe,' (viz. 
with a faith working by love,) ' are justified 8 ,' &c. The text 
speaks plainly of a present justification, or remission : for both 
amount to the same, as I have hinted before. St. Paul speaks 
of sincere converts, as ' being justified freely by God's grace, 
through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ * ; ' and soon 
after mentions ' remission of sins past V meaning remission then 
present ; as indeed he could not mean anything else. In another 
place, he speaks of justification as then actually received, or 
obtained : ' Being justified by faith, we have peace with God 
through our Lord Jesus Christ ... by whom we have now 
received the atonement \' Elsewhere he says, ' Ye are washed, 
ye are sanctified, ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, 
and by the Spirit of our God w .' Again : ' You being dead in 

i Mark ii. 5, 9. Luke v. 20. r John xx. 23. Acta xiii. 39. 

Bom. iii. 24. u Horn. iii. 25. v Rom. v. I, 11. w I Cor. vi. n. 

ix. conferred in the EucJiarist. 213 

your sins . . . hath he quickened, . . . having forgiven you all tres- 
passes x .' I shall take notice but of one text more: 'I write 
unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you y.' 
So then, present remission, in some cases or circumstances, may 
be justly looked upon as a clear point. Nevertheless, we are to 
understand it in a sense consistent with what St. Paul teaches 
elsewhere : ' We are made partakers of Christ, (finally,) if we 
hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end 2 .' 
There is a distinction to be made between present and final justi- 
fication : not that one is conditional and the other absolute, (for 
both are absolute in their kind, being founded in absolute grants,) 
but in one case, the party may live long enough to need a new 
grant ; in the other, he is set beyond all danger or doubtfulness. 
Present justification amounts to a present right or claim to 
heaven upon Gospel terms, and presupposes the performance of 
everything stipulated so far, and is therefore absolute for the 
time being a . As to future perseverance, because it is future, it 
comes not into present account, and so is out of the question, as 
to present justification b , or present stipulation. Perseverance is 
conditionally stipulated, that is to say, upon the supposition or 
condition that we live longer : but the question concerning our 
present claim to heaven upon the Gospel terms, turns only upon 
what is present, and what serves for the time being. A present 
right is not therefore no right, or not certain for the present, 
because of its being liable to forfeiture, on such and such suppo- 
sitions, afterwards. This I observe here, to remove the prejudices 
which some may possibly conceive against the very notion of 
present remission, (either in the Sacraments or out of them,) 
only because it is not absolute in every view, and upon every 

* Coloss. ii. 13. in quo est, ab ipso requiritur, etiamsi 

y i John ii. 12. jugis et pia operatic adhuc desit : 

1 Heb. iii. 14. proinde ex foedere illo justificatur, 

a 'Hie dico, quod notandum est, atque ad omnia foederis ejusdem 

quemvis justificatum praestitisse in- beneficia jus habet.' Bull. Resp. ad 

tegram foederis Evangelic! conditi- Animad. iii. sect. vi. p. 539. 

onem, pro statu in quo est. Quis- b 'Haec conditio jugis operation's 

quis fide in Christum Si' a.yain)s in evangelico foedere non absolute 

tvfpyovpii>ri praeditus est, is eo mo- requiritur, sed ex hypothesi ; nempe 

mento praestitit integram foederis si Deus vitain largitus fuerit.' Bull. 

Evangelici conditionem quae, in statu ibid. 

214 Remission of Sins CHAP. 

supposition, but upon the present view only, or in the circumstances 
now present. Indeed, remission of sins is a kind of continued act 
of God towards good men, often repeated in this life, and more 
and more confirmed the more they improve ; ascertained to them, 
against all future chances, at their departure hence, but not finally, 
or in the most solemn form conferred, before the day of judgment. 
3. I proceed to observe, that such present remission, as I have 
hitherto been speaking of, is ordinarily conferred in the Sacra- 
ment of Baptism, where there is no obstacle on the part of the 
recipient. Even the Baptism of John, upon repentance, instru- 
mentally conveyed remission of sins c : much more does the 
Baptism of Christ. ' Except a man be born of water and of the 
Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God <V This implies 
that Water-baptism, ordinarily, is requisite to remission, and 
consequently is an ordinary means of conveying it. But there 
are other texts more express : ' Repent, and be baptized every 
one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sius 
...the promise is . . . to all that are afar off 6 ,' &c. Ananias's 
words to Saul are very remarkable; 'Arise, and be baptized, and 
wash away thy sins f : ' words too clear and express to be eluded 
by any Socinian evasions. And so are those, other words ; 
' Christ also loved the Church, and gave himself for it ; that he 
might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the 
word ?.' The same doctrine is again taught by St. Paul, where 
he speaks of the ' putting off the body of sins, by the circum- 
cision of Christ h ;' by Christian circumcision, that is, by Baptism. 
The same thing is implied in our being 'saved by the laver 
of regeneration',' and 'saved by Baptism V and having 'hearts 
sprinkled from an evil conscience k .' It is in vain to plead against 
remission of sins in either of the Sacraments, on account of their 
being considered in the recipient as single acts : for since it is 
certain fact, that such remission is conferred in and by Baptism, 
there must be some fallacy in that kind of reasoning, whether 

c Mark i. 4. d John iii. 5. h Coloss. ii. 12, 13. See Dr. Wall, 

e Acts ii. 38, 39. Hist, of Inf. Bapt. part i. c. 2. De- 

f Acts xxii. 16. fence, p. 269, &c. 
* Ephes. v. 25, 26. Compare Pear- * Tit. iii. 5. i i Peter iii. 21. 
son on the Creed, Article x. p. 556. k Heb. x. 22. 

ix. conferred in the Eucharist. 215 

Ave can espy it or not, and it can be of no weight against plain 
and certain fact. But I have hinted in my introduction, and 
elsewhere \ where the error and misconception of such reasoning 
lies : and I shall only add here, that if a king were to send out 
his general letters of pardon for all submissive offenders, who, 
after renewing their bonds of allegiance, would come and take 
out their pardon in certain form, it would be no objection to the 
validity of their pardon, as conveyed by such form, that the 
submitting to it was but part of the condition, and not the whole, 
so long as it presupposes everything besides. I may note also, by 
the way, that no just objection can be made against the general 
notion of God's conferring pardon by the ministry of men, since it 
is certain that he does it in the Sacrament of Baptism, which is 
administered by the hands of men commissioned thereunto. 

Having thus despatched the three previous propositions, pre- 
paratory to what I intend, I now proceed directly to the subject 
of the present chapter, which is to shew, that God confers remis- 
sion of sins in or by the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, as 
well as by the Sacrament of Baptism. The analogy which 
there is between the two Sacraments, considered as Sacraments, 
is itself a strong presumption of it ; unless there were some 
very good reason to be given why remission should be granted 
there, and not here. The once granting of remission is no 
argument against repeating and renewing it, time after time, 
if there may be any new occasion for it, or if frequent renewals 
may add more abundant strength and firmness to what was 
before done, either for greater security or greater consolation. 

It may be said, perhaps, that Baptism was necessary to give 
any person a covenant-right to pardon upon repentance, but that 
when a man is once entered into covenant, then repentance alone 
suffices, and there is no longer need of submitting to any other 
public, solemn form of remission, as an instrument of pardon. I 
allow, there is not precisely the same need ; and yet I will not 
presume to maintain that there may not be great need, notwith- 
standing. It is one thing to say, that remission is given in the 
Eucharist, as well as in Baptism ; and another to say, that the 

1 See above, ch. viii. pp. i87, 188. 

2 1 6 Remission of Sins CHAP. 

Eucharist is as necessary to remission, as Baptism. Baptism 
may be the first and grand absolution ; and the Eucharist may 
be only second to it : the Eucharist may be an instrument of re- 
mission, but not the prime or chief instrument. I am aware 
that it was St. Austin's doctrine, (and, I think, of the Schools 
after him,) that baptismal remission looks not only backwards to 
sins past, but forwards also to future transgressions, and has its 
federal effect for remission of sins repented of, all our lives long. 
But yet that consideration never hindered him, nor others of the 
same sentiments with him, from believing, that remission of sins 
is granted in and by the Eucharist , as well as by the other 
Sacrament. Only, they might think, that Baptism is eminently 
and emphatically the Sacrament of remission, and the other, of 
spiritual growth ; one is more peculiarly the instrument of justi- 
fication, while sanctification is the eminent privilege of the other. 
Nevertheless, justification and sanctification, though distinct in 
notion, are yet so closely connected in the spiritual life, that they 
commonly go together, and so whatever tends to increase either, 
increases both. And though it is certainly true, that the Gospel 
covenant promises remission upon repentance, yet receiving the 
Communion, as it is an article of Christian obedience, is in- 
cluded in the notion of repentance, making a part of it, as often 
as we may and ought to receive. But besides that, as repentance 
alone, without a continual application of the great atonement, is 
of no avail upon the foot of the Christian covenant, nor can be 
accepted at the throne of grace ; the least that we can say of the 

m ' Sic, inquam, hoc accipiendum tia, nisi Baptismus sequeretur, vel 

est, ut eodem lavacro regenerationis postea, nisi praecesserit ? ' Augustin. 

et verbo sanctificationis, omnia pror- de Nupt. et Concupisc. lib. i. p. 298. 

sus mala hominum regeneratorum torn. x. edit. Bened. Conf. Sam. 

mundeutur, atque sanentur: non so- Ward. Determ. Theolog. p. 57. Vos- 

lum peccata quae omnia nunc remit- sius de Baptism. Disp. vi. p. 277. 

tuntur in Baptismo, sed etiam quae Turretin. Institut. Theolog. torn. iii. 

posterius humana ignorantia vel in- p. 460, &c. Hes3'chius, of the fifth 

firmitate contrahuntur. Non ut Bap- century, expressed it thus : ' Virtus 

tisma quotiens peccatur totiens repe- praecedentis baptisuiatw operatur 

tatur; sed quiaipso quod semeldatur, et in ea, quae postea acta fuerit, 

fit, ut non solum antea, verum etiam poenitentia.' In Levit. lib. ii. p. 

postea quoruinlibet peccatorum venia 1 18. 

tidelibus impetretur. Quid enim pro- n Vid. Augustin. de Peccat. Mer. 

desset vel ante Baptisinum posniten- et Rem. lib. i. cap. 24. 

ix. conferred in the Eucharist. 17 

expediency of the Eucharist, in that respect, is, that it amounts 
to a public, solemn, certain application of Christ's merits, for the 
rendering our repentance acceptable, (which no other service 
except Baptism does,) and therefore it is a service carrying in it 
the liveliest assurance, and the strongest consolation, with re- 
spect to that very remission promised upon our serious repentance. 
Baptism once received may perhaps justly be supposed to carry 
in it the force of such continued application all our lives after ; 
but yet it was not for nothing, that God appointed another Sacra- 
ment, supplemental to Baptism, for carrying on the same thing, 
or for the more effectual securing the same end. It is further 
to be considered, that if the Eucharist includes in it (as shall be 
shewn in its place) a renewal of the baptismal covenant, it must 
of course be conceived to carry in it a renewal of baptismal re- 
mission also : and remission, on God's part, is a kind of con- 
tinued act, always growing, always improving, during the several 
stages and advances of the Christian life . Besides, if Divine 
wisdom, among other reasons, has superadded the solemnity of 
Baptism to repentance, in order to fix the repentance more 
strongly, and to render it accepted, as also to make the par- 
don therein granted the more affecting and memorable ; it is 
obvious to perceive how the solemnity of the Eucharist is 
fitted to serve the like purposes ; and is therefore the more 
likely to have been intended for another public and sensible 
application of the merits of Christ's death, and a channel of 
remission P, succedaneous to Baptism, in some views, and so far 

' Justificatio et sanctificatio sunt P ' By the same reason that it came 

actus quidem perpetuus, in quo et to be thought needful to make use 

Deus semper donat, et homo semper of sensible means to convey or assure 

recipit. Tota itaque vita homo fidelis to mankind God's pardon and grace 

poscit remissionem peccatorum, etre- upon their first conversion to Chris- 

novationem sui : tota item vita utrum- tianity, by the same, or a greater 

que impetrat. Habet ante, sed con- reason, it must be judged to be so, 

sequitur turn conservationem turn to make use of the like sensible 

incrementum ejus quod habet. Omni- means to convey or assure the same 

bus credentibus opus, ut tuna fides grace and pardon, after men have 

turn gratia fide percepta foveatur, in any measure forfeited the interest 

alatur, augeatur. Omnibus igitur they had in the other, 

credentibus et verbi, et sacramento- 'By the same reason again, that 

rum adminiculo opus est,' &c. Vos- it came to be thought needful to 

sius de Sacr. Vi et Effic. p. 252. exact of us sensible declarations of 

2 1 8 Remission of Sins CHAP. 

serving instead of a repetition of it. But whether we are right 
or wrong in these and the like plausible reasonings upon the 
analogy of the two Sacraments, or upon their common, or dis- 
tinct uses, yet if we can prove the fact, that the Eucharist really 
is an instrument of remission, or a Gospel form of absolution, we 
need not then concern ourselves much about the rationale of the 
thing: our positive proofs will be sufficient without it. This 
then is what I shall now proceed to, following the light of 
Scripture and antiquity. 

1. That remission of sins is ordinarily conferred in the Eucha- 
rist, follows undeniably from the doctrine of i Cor. x. 16, as 
explained in the preceding chapter of this work. For if we are 
therein partakers of Christ's death, with the fruits thereof ; and 
if the atonement be one of those fruits, and indeed the first and 
principal ; and if remission follows the atonement, wherever it is 
truly applied ; it is manifest from these considerations taken to- 
gether, that remission is conferred, or (which comes to the same) 
renewed and confirmed, in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. This 
argument is built upon a very clear and allowed maxim, that the 
effect must answer to the cause, and the fruits to the stock from 
whence they grow 1. Besides, to deny that the Eucharist carries 
remission with it seems to make it rather a memorial of the 
reconcilement, than an actual participation of it : which is what 
the Socinians do indeed teach, but have been confuted (if I may 
take leave to say so) in the foregoing chapters. 

2. I go on to our Lord's own words in the institution : ' Drink 
ye all of this : for this is my blood, the blood of the new cove- 
nant, shed for you, and for many, for the remission of sins.' Our 
Lord here mentions the remission of sins as the effect or fruit of 

our renouncing the errors of our rist, into the expediency of- sensible 
unconverted state ... by the same, means to testify repentance on man's 
or a greater reason, must it be part, for sins committed after Bap- 
judged to be so, to exact of us the tism, and for the greater solemnity 
like sensible declarations, after we of granting pardon, on God's part, 
have, by our disobedience, departed Which appears to be a very just ac- 
from, and prevaricated our former count of it, in part, or it is, at least, a 
ones.' Towerson on the Sacrament, sufficient answer to objections drawn 
p. 158. from the rationale of the thing. 

The author here resolves the reason See Dr. Felling's Disc, on the 

of granting remission by the Eucha- Sacrament, p. 138, &c. 

ix. conferred in the Eucharist. 219 

the blood shed : that very blood shed is what we symbolically 
drink in the Eucharist, together with the fruits of it, as hath 
been abundantly proved above : therefore we drink remission in 
the Eucharist, which is one of those fruits. To enforce the argu- 
ment, observe but with what emphasis our Lord says, ' Drink ye 
all of this : for this is,' &c. Why such a stress laid upon drink- 
ing this blood shed for remission, if they were not to drink 
remission in the very act 1 Commemorating will not answer the 
purpose : for drinking is the constant symbol of receiving some- 
thing in, not of commemorating, which is paying out : and I 
have often observed before, that receiving in this instance must, 
in the very nature of the act, mean present receiving : therefore 
again, the receiving symbolically in the Eucharist that justify- 
ing blood of Christ, must of consequence amount to receiving 
present remission of sins. Bishop Taylor works up the argument 
a little differently, thus : ' The body receives the body of the 
mystery, (we eat and drink the symbols with our mouths), but 
faith feeds upon the mystery itself, it entertains the grace . . . 
which the Spirit of God conveys under that signature. Now, 
since the mystery is perfectly and openly expressed to be the 
remission of sins, if the soul does the work of the soul, as the 
body the work of the body, the soul receives remission of sins, as 
the body does the symbols and the Sacrament r .' 

The Socinians here object, that the text does not say that the 
Eucharist is ordained for remission, but that the blood, the blood 
spilled upon the cross, was shed for remission. But it is obvious 
to reply, that that blood which was once literally given for 
remission, upon the cross, is now every day symbolically and 
mystically given in the Eucharist, and given with all its fruits : 
therefore remission of sins is given. Such is the nature of sym- 
bolical grants, as I have before explained at large : they exhibit 
what they represent, convey what they signify, and are in divine 
construction and acceptance, though not literally or substantially, 
the very thing which they supply the place of. Which is so true 
in this case, that the very attributes of the signs and things 

r Taylor's Worthy Communicant, p. 51. 

22O Remission of Sins CHAP. 

signified are reciprocally predicated of each other : the body is 
represented as broken s , though that attribute properly belongs 
to the bread ; and the cup, by a double figure, is said to be shed 
for you *, when, in strictness of speech, that attribute belongs 
only to the blood. This is further confirmed from the analogy 
which there is between the representative blood in the Eucha- 
rist, and the typical blood of the ancient Passover. For as the 
blood there was a token of remission, and made instrumental to 
remission, so is it also in the symbolical blood of the Eucharist j 
and thus everything answers u . The blood likewise of the 
ancient sacrifices, prefiguring the blood of Christ, was a token of 
a covenant 7 , and conveyed remission, (legal directly, and evan- 
gelical indirectly,) and therefore the symbolical blood of the 
Eucharist figuring the same blood of Christ, cannot but be 
understood to convey remission as effectually, yea and more 
effectually than the other, which the very phrases here made 
use of, parallel to the former, strongly argue. 

I shall only add further, that since there certainly is spiritual 
manducation in the Eucharist, as before shewn, and since remis- 
sion of sins, by all accounts, and even by the Socinians, is 
allowed to be included in spiritual manducation ; it will plainly 
follow, that remission of sins is conveyed in and by the Eucha- 
rist ; which was to be proved. 

Having thus far argued the point from Scripture principles, 
I may now proceed to inquire what additional light may be 
borrowed from authorities, ancient or modern. I shall draw 
together a summary account of what the primitive churches 
taught in this article, and shall afterwards consider, very briefly, 
the doctrine of our own Church on the same head. 

The learned author of the Antiquities of the Christian Church, 
having previously observed of Baptism, that it was esteemed the 
grand absolution of all, proceeds soon after to take notice of 
the absolution granted in the Eucharist, and gives this general 
account of it : 

I Cor. xi. 24. Exod. xxiv. 8. See Nature and 

1 Luke xxii. 20. Obligation of the Christian Sacra- 

u See above, ch. ii. p. 45. ments, vol. iv. p. 103. 

ix. conferred in the Eucharist. 221 

' It had some relation to penitential discipline, but did not 
solely belong to it. For it was given to all baptized persons 
who never fell under penitential discipline, as well as to those 
who lapsed and were restored to communion : and in both re- 
spects, it was called TO T/Xeioi>, the perfection, or consummation, 
of a Christian ; there being no higher mystery that an ordinary 
Clmstian could partake of. To those who never fell into such 
great sins as required a public penance, it was an absolution 
from lesser sins, which were called venial, and sins of daily incur- 
sion : and to penitents who had lapsed, it was an absolution from 
those greater sins for which they were fallen under censure w .' 
To this may be added, that the name of e'0d8toi>, ' viaticum,' which 
means provision for one's journey into the other world, and 
which was frequently given to the Eucharist, in the fourth cen- 
tury x , and so on, is a general proof of the sense of the Church 
in those times with respect to remission in the holy Communion : 
for as that name imports more, so it certainly implies remission 
of sins, as part of the idea belonging to it. 

After this brief general account, let us come to particulars. 
The elder Fathers, of the two first centuries, (so far as I have 
observed,) make not express mention of remission of sins in the 
Eucharist, though they are explicit enough with respect to Bap- 
tism. Their common way, with regard to the Eucharist, was to 
pass over remission, and to go higher up to sanctification of the 
Spirit, and spiritual or mystical union with Christ, and the con- 
sequent right to glory and immortality and eternal life. Perhaps 
they might conceive it low and diminutive, in that case, to speak 
at all of remission, which was but the initiatory part, and 
belonged more peculiarly to the initiatory Sacrament, which in 
those times, and in the case of adults, immediately preceded the 
other. However that were, we find proofs sufficient from the 
writers of the third century Y, that the Eucharist was thought to 
be of a propitiatory nature, in virtue of the great sacrifice therein 

w Bingham, book xix. c. i. Bingham, book xv. cap. 4. sect. 9. 

T Testimonies are collected by Ca- book xviii. cap. 4. sect. 3. Mabillon 

saubon, Exercit. N. Hi. p. 415. de Liturg. Gall. p. 85. 
y Suicer, in 'E<p<58ioj' ) p. 1290. 

222 Remiss-Ion of Sins CHAP. 

commemorated : and though the elder Fathers do not directly 
say so, they tacitly supposed or insinuated the same thing, by 
their standing discipline and by their so often calling the Eucha- 
rist a sacrifice well-pleasing to God : besides that the sanctifica- 
tion which they do speak of, as conferred in the Eucharist, 
implied remission of sins, either as then granted, or at least then 
confirmed and established. 

Origen is one that speaks plainly of the propitiatory nature of 
the Eucharist z ; understanding it in a qualified sense, as being 
propitiatory only in virtue of the grand sacrifice, or as all accept- 
able services are, in some sense, appeasing and pacificatory. 

Cyprian, of the same time, takes notice of the sacramental cup 
as relieving the sad and sorrowful heart, before oppressed with 
the anguish of sins, and now overjoyed with a sense of the 
Divine indulgence a . From which words it is manifest, that it 
was God's pardon (not merely the Church's reconciliation) which 
was supposed to be conveyed in and by the Eucharist ; which is 
furthur evident from the noted story of Dionysius Bishop of 
Alexandria his sending the Eucharist to Serapion at the point 
of death, and the reflections which he made upon it, as being 
instrumental towards the wiping out his sins before his depar- 
ture b. Such was the prevailing notion of that time in relation 
to remission of sins, as conferred in the Eucharist. ' Some 
ancient writers ' (I use the words of Mr. Bingham) ' acknowledge 
no other sorts of absolution but only two ; the baptismal absolu- 
tion which is antecedent to all penitential discipline, and this of 
reconciling public penitents to the communion of the altar : 
because this latter comprehends all other ways of absolution, in 
the several acts and ceremonies that were used in conferring it c .' 
Another very learned writer has made the like observation, in 
the words here following : ' They that have with the greatest 

1 'Si respicias ad commemoratio- catisangentibuspremebatur, Divinae 

nem de qua dicit Dominus, Hoc facite indulgentiae laetitia resolvatur : quod 

iiimeamcomniemorationem,invenies, turn demum potest laetificare in Ec- 

quodista est commemoratio sola quae clesia Domini bibentem' &c. Cypr. 

propitium facit hominibus Deum.' Ep. Ixiii. p. 107, alias 153. 
Origen. in Levit. Horn. xiii. p. 255. b Vid. Euseb. E. H. lib. vi. c. 44. 

a 'Epotato sanguine Domini, moe- p. 318. 
stum pectus ac triste, quod prius pec- c Bingham, book xix. cap. I. sect. 6. 

TX. conferred in the Eucfiarist. 223 

diligence searched into antiquity, can discover no other rite or 
solemnity used upon this occasion, but barely the admitting the 
penitents to communion : by this they were entirely acquitted and 
absolved from the censure under which their crimes had laid them : 
by this their sins were remitted to them, and so they became once 
more fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God d .' 

For the fourth century, Eusebius may be an evidence to prove 
the doctrine of remission in and by the Eucharist, where he 
says ; ' We moreover offer the show-bread, while we revive the 
salutary memorial and the blood of sprinkling of the Lamb of 
God, that taketh away the sins of the world, the purgative of 
our souls e .' He seems here to understand the blood of Christ 
as making the purgation directly, and the salutary memorial as 
doing it indirectly, and in virtue of the other. He speaks plainer 
elsewhere, directly saying, that Christians receive remission of 
sins in the daily memorial which they celebrate, viz. the memorial 
of our Lord's body and blood f . 

Cyril of the same century styles the Eucharist the sacrifice of 
propitiation?, (in such a sense as I have before hinted with 
relation to Origen,) and he supposes it to be offered in order to 
render God propitious, which amounts to the same as if he 
had said, for remission of sins h . 

Ephraem Syrus, of the same age, supposes that the Eucharist 
purifies the soul from its spots, that is, from its sins 5 . And 
Ambrose J scruples not to ascribe to the bread consecrated 

d Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, Demonstr. Evang. lib. ii. c. 10. p. 37. 

part ii. p. 210: compare p. 10?, and e Trjs Bvatas iiceivris TOV /Ao<r/uoO. 

part i. p. 284, &c. Cp. Morin. de Cyrill. Mystag. v. sect. 8. p. 327. 

Poenitent. lib. iv. c. 21, 22. Cp. Deylingius, Observat. Miscellan. 

e 'AXA.O Kal TOVS apTovs rfjy irpo- p. 155, &c. 

Offfteas irpo<T(f>(po^ff t T)\V au>Tr\piov h Xpicrrbi' fffcpaytair^fvov irpofftpep- 

^.v-fi/j.tji' avafairvpovvTfS, r6 Tf TOV oxfv, virtp rcav rifUfTfpaiv ajuaprij/ua- 

pa.VTHTij.ov alu.a. TOV a/iifou TOV &fov, Tiav Trpoaifrepo/, ti\ov/j.ft>oi virtp 

TOV TrepifXovTos rfv au.apr(av TOV K<5- avTcav Tf Kal T)u.>v T'bv <pt\dv6p<i)vov 

(TU.OV, KaQdprnov TWV rineTfpcav ^/vx^v. f6v. Cyrill. Mystag. v. sect. 10. 

Euseb. in Psalm, xci. p. 608. p. 328. 

f Aia TTJS tvOtov Kal jutxm/cTjs 8<5a- ' ' Animae accedentes per ilia tre- 

<TKa\ias irdvTfs r;juf?s 01 ^| lOvw Trjr menda mysteria macularum purifica- 

&q>riv TUIV irpoTfpwv kpafmtf&rtev tionem accipiunt.' Ephr. Syr. de Sa- 

fvpdu.t6a . . . ei/cdroij T^V TOV fftafjuiTos cerdotio, p. 3. 

avTov Kal TOV aiu-aTos TTJV tr4fuHfft& i 'Ego sum panis vitae ; etiamsi 

6trrj/xe'pai iirntXovvTfs, K.T.\. Euseb. quis mortuus fuerit, tamen si panem 

224 Remission of Sins CHAP. 

remission of sins ; which is to be understood with some allow- 
ance for a figurative way of speaking. He speaks indeed of 
the living bread, that is, of Christ himself, but considered as 
symbolically received in the Eucharist ; which is manifest from 
his referring to i Cor. XL 28, 'Let a man examine himself.' 

St. Austin appears to have been in the same sentiments 
exactly : where speaking of the grand sacrifice, by which alone 
true remission k comes, he immediately adds, that all Christians 
are invited to drink the blood of it, meaning in the Eucharist. 

All the ancient Liturgies are full of the same notion of remis- 
sion of sins conferred in this Sacrament. And though they are 
mostly spurious, or interpolated, and answer not strictly to the 
names which they commonly bear, yet some of them have been 
in. use for many centuries upwards in the Greek, Latin, and 
Oriental churches, and are a good proof of the universality of a 
doctrine for the time they obtained. The Clementine, though 
it is not thought to have been ever in public use, is commonly 
believed to be the oldest of any now extant : and though, as an 
entire collection, it cannot perhaps be justly set higher than the 
fifth century, yet it certainly contains many things derived from 
earlier times, and among those, probably, the doctrine of eucha- 
ristical remission. In that Liturgy prayer is made, that the 
Holy Spirit may so bless the elements, that the communicants 
may obtain remission of sins \ And in the post-communion, 
prayer is again made that the receiving of the Eucharist may 
turn to salvation, not condemnation, to the benefit both of 
body and soul, to the preserving true piety, and to remission 
of sins m . 

meum acceperit, vivet in aetcrnum : torn. iii. pp. 516, 517. Cp. Damas- 

ille enim accipit qui seipsum probat. cen. de Fid. lib. iv. c. 13. p. 

Qui autem accipit, non moritur pec- 271. 

catoris morte ; quia panis hie remissio 1 "iva. ol iJ.tTa.\a.&6vTfs avrov... 

peccatorum est.' Ambros. de Bene- a<f>(ffas a/j.a.pTrtfj.dTtav rvxtaffi, K.T,\. 

diet. Patriarch, c. ix. p. 525. Apostol. Const, lib. viii. c. 12. p. 

k ' Illis sacrificiis hoc unum sacri- 407. 

ficium significabatur, in quo vera fit m KoJ irapaKa\.fffcaft.fv n^] tls xpifui, 

remissio peccatorum. A cujus ta- oA\* ds ffuTrjpiav yfvtffOcu, tis 

men sacrificii sanguine non solum w<pe\(tav $VXT)S ical o-oS^oroy, tir <pv- 

nemo prohibetur, sed ad bibendum AUKT^ tutrtfieias, tls &c(>f(ni' afiapnuv. 

potius omnes exhortantur qui volunt K.T.\. Apost. Constit. lib. viii. c. 

habere vitam.' Augustin. in Levit. 14. p. 410. 

ix. conferred in the Eucharist. 225 

Conformable to this pattern are the later Liturgies : parti- 
cularly that which is called Basil's, according to the Alexandrian 
use, in Renaudot's edition n . And another, entitled Gregory's 
Liturgy . The same thing is observable in the Liturgies which 
go under the names of apostles or evangelists, collected by 
Fabricius : as St. James's P, St. Peter's <i, St. Matthew's r , St. 
Mark's 8 , and St. John's *. The Liturgy under the name of 
Chrysostom, published by Goar, has the like forms u . So also 
have the Oriental Liturgies in Renaudotius's Collection, volume 
the second, and the Latin ones published by Mabillon ; of which 
it would be tedious here to speak more particularly ; as it is also 
needless to trouble the reader with more references in a very 
clear point. Upon the whole, there appears to have been a 
general consent of the Christian churches all along as to the 
point of eucharistical remission of sins : which is proved, not 
only from the testimonies of single Fathers, but from the ancient 
standing discipline of the Church, and from the concurring lan- 
guage of all the ancient Liturgies now extant. 

As to the judgment of the first Reformers abroad, it is well 
known to fall in with the same : or if any doubt should be, let 
Luther answer for the Lutherans v , and for the Calvinists 
Calvin w . 

The judgment of our own Church will easily be proved to 

n Basil. Liturg. Alex. pp. 61, 69, peccatomm. Ergo, bibitio ex calice 

71 ; apud Renaud. vol. i. Eueharistico applicat, obsignat, et 

Gregorii Liturg. pp. 92, 95, 98, confirmat credentibus, promissionem 
106. de remissione peccatorum.'. . .Sacra- 

P Jacobi Liturg. pp. 38, 41, 68, mentuiii illud ipsum quod signal, 

71, 72, 86, 101, in, 113, 120. etiam confert, et exhibet.' Gerhard. 

1 Petri Liturg. pp. 175, 195. loc. Comm. de Sacr. Coena, c. xx. 
1 Matth Liturg. pp. 216, 245, 248. p. 178. 

" Marci Liturg. pp. 261, 299, 315, w ' Christi consilium fuit, corpus 

316. suuni sub pane edeudum porrigere in 

* Joannis Liturg. p. 203. remission em peccatorum.' Calvin.Ad- 

u Goar. Euchol. pp. 77, 80, 82. inonit. ult. adWestphal. p. 950. Cp. 

v 'Pertinet hue pulcherrima gra- Instit. lib. iv. c. 17. sect. 42. 

datio Lutheri : ' Calix Eucharisticus Lambertus Danaeus cautiously 

continetvinum: vinumexhibet Chris- words the doctrine thus : 'Coena Do- 

ti sanguinem : sanguis Christi coin- mini . . . est applicatio semel a Christo 

plectitur novuin testamentum, quia factae peccatorum nostrorum reniis- 

est novi testamenti sanguis : riovum sionis.' Epist. ad Ecjles. Gallican. 

testamentum continet remissionem 1498. 

226 Remission of Sins CHAP. 

concur in the same article, from the known language of our 
Communion Office, and Homilies. In our public Service, we 
pray, that 'our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, 
and our souls washed through his most precious blood.' The 
propositions couched under these words are several: i. That our 
bodies are the temple of the Holy Ghost 2. That sin defileth 
them. 3. That the sacrifice of Christ, removing guilt, (other due 
circumstances supposed,) makes them clean. 4. That there is an 
application of that sacrifice made in the Eucharist. 5. That 
therefore such application ought to be prayed for. So much for 
the body. The like, with a little change, may be understood 
also of the soul : and the conclusion from both parts is that 
guilt is washed away in the Sacrament, duly administered, and 
duly received, both from body and soul ; which in other words 
amounteth to this, that remission of sins is conferred by the 
Eucharist, to all worthy receivers. 

In a thanksgiving prayer, of the same Service, we pray that 
'we and all thy whole Church may obtain remission of sins,' 
beseeching the Divine Majesty, not to ' weigh our merits,' but 
to 'pardon our offences,' &c. ; which words carry in them a 
manifest allusion to that remission of sins which is conceived 
ordinarily to pertain to this Sacrament, and is expected from it, 
as one of the benefits of it. But considering that all depends 
upon our being meet partakers, (whereof God only is the unerring 
Judge,) and that it becomes every communicant to think humbly 
of himself, leaning to the modest side ; it is very proper to refer 
the whole to God's clemency, entreating him to accept of us as 
meet partakers, and thereupon to grant us the remission we came 
for. For though it is an undoubted truth, that the Eucharist 
confers remission to the faithful communicant, yet it is right to 
leave the determination of our faithfulness to God the searcher 
of hearts, and in the meanwhile to beg forgiveness at his hands. 
Add to this, that were we ever so certain that Ave are actually 
pardoned upon receiving the Eucharist, yet as remission is a 
continued act, and always progressive, (which I before noted,) it 
can never be improper to go on with our petitions for it, any 
more than to make use of the Lord's Prayer every hour of our 

ix. conferred in the Eucharist. 227 

lives. It was so used anciently, just after plenary remission* : 
and in like manner we now make use of it, immediately after 
our having received the Communion ; without the least appre- 
hension that such usage interferes at all with the principle 
which I have been maintaining, as indeed it does not. No- 
thing is more frequent in the ancient Liturgies, than to ask 
forgiveness immediately after receiving, though the doctrine of 
present remission is fully expressed and inculcated in the same 
Liturgies Y. 

Enough hath been said to shew, that our Communion Office 
supposes remission of sins to be conferred in the Eucharist. 
The same thing is directly and clearly asserted in our Homilies. 
' As to the number of Sacraments, if they should be considered 
according to the exact signification of a Sacrament, namely, 
for visible signs expressly commanded in the New Testament, 
whereunto is annexed the promise of free forgiveness of sins, 
and of our holiness, and joining in Christ, there be but two, 
namely, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord z .' Here it is not 
only supposed that remission is conferred in the Sacrament of 
the Eucharist, but that it could not ia strictness be reputed 
a Sacrament, if it were not so : so great a stress is there laid on 
this principle. Accordingly, afterwards in the same Homily, 
absolution is rejected as no Sacrament, having no such pi'omise 
of remission annexed and tied to the visible sign : and Orders 
also is rejected, because it 'lacks the promise of remission of 

* Jerome's remark upon this case, dimitte nobis debita nostra, &c. Non 

when Baptism and the Eucharist went humilitatis mendacio, ut tu interpre- 

together, and perfect remission was taris; sedpavorefragilitatishumanae, 

supposed to have been just granted, suam conscientiam formidantis.' Hie- 

is worth noting : ronym. Dialog, adv. Pelag. lib. iii. p. 

'De Baptismatis fonte surgentes, 543. 

et regenerati in Dominum Salvato- > See the Clementine Liturgy quot- 

rem...statim in prinia communione ed above, and compare Fabricius's 

corporis Christ! dicunt : et dimitte Collection, pp. 1 20, 333. Bemvudot's, 

nobis debita nostra, quae illis fuerant vol. i. p. 51 ; vol. ii. pp. 42, 152, 174, 

in Christi confessione dimissa. ... 212,233,253,269,447,634. Mabil- 

Quamvis sit hominum perfecta con- Ion's in Mus. Ital. vol. i. p. 281. 

versio, et post vitia atque peccata Missal. Gall. p. 331. Liturg. Gallic. 

virtutum plena possessio ; numquid p. 300. 

possunt sic esse sine vitio, quomodo l Homily ix. of Common Prayer 

illi qui statim de Christi fonte pro- and Sacraments, p. 299. Compare 

cedunt ? Et tamen jubentur dicere, Cranmer, p. 46. 

Q 2 

228 Remission of Sins CHAP. 

sin.' In another Homily, where the Lord's Supper is particu- 
larly treated of, it is observed that therein ' the favourable 
mercies of God are sealed, the satisfaction by Christ towards 
us confirmed, and the remission of sins established*.' 

After these public authentic evidences of the doctrine of our 
Church in this particular, it will be needless to add the con- 
curring sentiments of our eminent Divines, all along from that 
time. But because the point has been sometimes contested, 
both abroad and at home, and difficulties have been raised, it 
will be but fair and just to the reader, to set before him the 
utmost that has been pleaded on the contrary side, and to 
suggest, as briefly as may be, the proper solutions of the ap- 
pearing difficulties. 

Objections removed. 

i. It has been objected, that 'the Sacrament of the Lord's 
Supper is not itself like Baptism, a rite appointed for the 
remission of sins ; but it is a commemoration only of the all- 
sufficient sacrifice, which was once offered for an eternal ex- 
piation 11 .' To which I answer, i. That supposing this Sacrament 
were not appointed at all for remission, it does not follow 
that it must be appointed only for commemoration ; because it 
might be (as it certainly is) appointed in part for sanctification 
also. 2. Supposing further, that it is not completely equal to 
Baptism in point of remission, yet it does not follow that it may 
not confer remission in some measure, or to an inferior degree. 
3. It is untruly suggested, that the Eucharist is only a comme- 
moration of the all-sufficient sacrifice, since it most certainly is, 
as hath been proved, an application of that sacrifice to every 
worthy receiver : and since remission of sins is one of the fruits 

a Homily on the worthy receiving, niunt, quod fide comprehendunt et 

&c. part i. p. 378. The Reformatio percipiunt Christi sacrosanctum cor- 

Legum, of the same time, says thus: pus, respectu nostrae salutis ad 

' Eucharistia Sacramentum est, in quo crueem fixum, et cruorem pro tol- 

cibum ex pane sumunt, et potum ex lendis fusum nostris peccatis, ut 

vino, qui convivae sedent in sacra Dei promissa palam ipsa loquun- 

Domini mensa : cujus panis inter tur.' De Sacrament, tit. v. c. 4. 

illos et vini communicatione, obsig- p. 29. 

natur gratia Spiritus Sancti, veniaque b Dr. Clarke's Posth. Sermons,, 

peccatorum, ad quam ex eo perve- vol. iv. serra. vi. p. 133. 

ix. conferred in the Eucharist. 229 

of that sacrifice, it must, it cannot but be allowed, that the 
Eucharist carries remission in it, more or less, and to some 
degree or other. 

2. A second objection runs thus : ' To imagine that the Lord's 
Supper, which is to be repeated perpetually, has such a promise 
annexed to it of taking away all past sins, as Baptism had, 
which was to be administered but once, is a dangerous and fatal 
error, because such an opinion would be plainly an encourage- 
ment for men to continue in sin, that the grace of forgiveness 
might be perpetually repeated and abound .' In answer hereto, 
let but the reader put repentance instead of Lord's Supper, 
and then traverse the objection over again in his mind, if it 
be only to see whether the very same objection does not plead 
as strongly against repeated forgiveness upon repeated repent- 
ance, as against the same forgiveness upon repeated communion : 
for we never suppose any new forgiveness granted in the com- 
munion, but upon new repentance. What then have we to 
trust to, if the plain and comfortable Gospel doctrine of forgive- 
ness (toties quoties) upon true repentance, shall be represented 
as a dangerous and fatal error, and an encouragement to continue 
in sins, that grace may abound ] It may be true, that such 
merciful doctrine of forgiveness may cany some appearance of 
encouragement to sin : so do some other Gospel doctrines ; or 
else St. Paul would have had no need to caution us against 
' continuing in sin, that grace may abound* 3 :' but nevertheless, 
it would not only be great presumption, but a fatal error, to 
draw any such inference from the doctrine of repeated forgive- 
ness upon repeated repentance. For what would have been the 
consequence, supposing that the rule had run, that if a man sins 
once, or twice, or a hundred, or a thousand times, and repent as 
often, he shall be forgiven 1 ? Would not many have been tempted 
to sin on, till they come very near to the utmost verge of for- 
giveness, before they would think of repenting to purpose ? And 
what scruples might they not raise about the number of sins, or 
of repentance 1 And if any man should once go beyond the limits 
now supposed to be assigned, what would then remain but black 
c Dr. Clarke, ibid. p. 134. d Bom. vi. I, 2. 

230 Remission of Sins CHAP. 

despair, and a hardened resolution to continue in sin ? Therefore 
Divine wisdom has mercifully fixed this matter upon a much 
better foot, namely, upon one plain rule, that as often as men 
sin, and truly repent, (without limitation, or number,) so often 
they shall be forgiven. When evil habits have much and long 
prevailed, repentance, however sincere, will hardly be completed 
at once : but the ordinary method is, to repent again and 
again, after every relapse, till by degrees a man gains the entire 
mastery over his appetites and passions. In this way, his 
relapses will grow less frequent, and evil habits less prevalent, 
and every new repentance will be stronger and stronger, till 
at length by God's grace, and his own hearty endeavours, 
he gets the victory, and becomes confirmed in all virtue and 
godliness. By this we may perceive the use and benefit of 
frequent forgiveness upon frequent repentances, in a degree 
suitable and proportionate ; that sinners may never want en- 
couragement to go on repenting more and more, after their 
relapses, and as often sealing their sincere repentances in the 
blessed Sacrament, to make them the more solemn and the more 
enduring. But, in the meanwhile, let sinners beware how they 
tempt the Divine goodness too far, by relapsing : for even 
repentance, as depending on Divine grace, is so far in God's 
hands, as well as pardon : and they who presume to sin often, 
because they may be often forgiven, are in a likely way to come 
to an end of forgiveness, before they make an end of sinning, 
and to be taken, at length, in their own snare e . 

Notwithstanding what I have here said, with respect to eucha- 
ristical absolution, I would not be construed to mean, that there 
is no difference at all, in point of remission, between Baptism 
and the Eucharist : for I am aware that there is some differ- 
ence, and perhaps considerable. I shall here draw from the 
ancients, and shall endeavour to point out the difference as 

e ' Absit ut aliquis ita interpre- idcirco deterior sit quia Deus me- 

tetur, quasi eo sibi etiam mine lior est, totiens delinquendo quo- 

pateat ad. delinquendum, quia patet tiens ignoscitur. Caeterum, finem 

ad poeniteiulum ; et redundantia evadendi habebit, cum offendendi 

clementiae caelestis libidinem fa- non habebit.' Tertullian. de Poenit. 

ciat humanae temeritatis : nemo c. vii. p. 1 26, 

ix. conferred in the E^lchar^st. 231 

clearly and exactly as I can. It was understood to lie in three 
things chiefly ; the extent of the remission, and the certainty, 
and the perfection of it. 

Baptism was conceived to amount to a plenary and certain 
indulgence for all kinds of sins, were they ever so great ; (as for 
instance, the crucifying of our Lord f ;) and of any numher, were 
they ever so many, or ever so often repeated, provided only they 
were sincerely repented of, and forsaken at the font : they were 
from that instant remembered no more 2 , either in God's account 
or the Church's. But as to sins committed after Baptism, if of 
a grievous kind, (as idolatry, murder, adultery,) or less grievous, 
but often repeated, or much aggravated by the circumstances, 
they were judged too heinous to be pardoned in the Eucharist, 
and the men too vile to be admitted to communion ever after h . 
Not that the church presumed to limit the mercies of God, who 
searches the hearts, and who could judge of the sincerity of the 
repentance of such persons : but Church governors of that time 
would not take upon them to promise such persons peace, upon 
any professions of repentance whatever, but left them to God 
only. In short, though they would have given Baptism to any 
the wickedest Pagans whatever, upon proper professions of re- 
pentance, yet they would not give the Eucharist to such as had 
sinned in like manner after Baptism : which shews that they 
made some difference between baptismal remission and the eucha- 
ristical one, in respect of certainty and extent. When the severity 
of discipline afterwards relaxed a little, and communion was 
allowed to all penitents at the hour of death, if not sooner, yet 
they did not then pretend to be certain that God would absolve 
the persons, like as they judged with respect to baptismal 
absolution 5 . Nevertheless, if we distinguish justly upon the two 
cases, it does not from hence follow, that they thought of any 
proper disparity between the two absolutions in themselves con- 
sidered ; but strictly speaking, the disparity was supposed to lie 

f Cyrill. Hierosol. Catech. iii. s. 15. h See Birigham, book xviii. cap. 4. 

p. 47. Cp. Morinus de Poenitent. sect. 4. 
lib. iii. c. 2, 3. l See Bingham, book xviii. cap. 4. 

s Vid. Theodoret. in Jerem. xxxi. sect. 6. Compare Marshall, Penit. 

34. p. 230. Discipl. p. in. 

333 Remission of Sins CHAP. 

in the different malignity of sins committed before Baptism and 
after. The remedies might be conceived of equal force, other 
circumstances being equal; but the malady was not the same 
in both cases. 

Another difference between baptismal and eucharistical remis- 
sion was understood to lie here, that the one perfectly wiped out 
all past sins ; the other, though it healed them, yet left some 
kind of blots or scars behind it J : on account whereof, many who 
were admitted to lay communion were yet considered as blemished 
in some measure, and not fit to be admitted afterwards to the 
sacred offices k . No crimes whatever committed before Baptism, 
and left at the font, were thought any bar or blot for the time 
to come ; Baptism washed all away : but the case was different 
with respect to sins of a scandalous nature committed after 
Baptism ; for neither repentance nor the Eucharist was conceived 
to wash off all stain. Hence some made a distinction, upon 
Psalm xxxii. i, between perfect remission of sin in Baptism, and 
the covering it by penance and absolution * ; that is, by the 
Eucharist. And others seem to have thought that sins com- 
mitted before Baptism were perfectly blotted out, as it were, 
from the book of God's remembrance, as if they had never been, 
but that sins of any grievous kind committed afterwards, though 
pardoned upon repentance, should yet be recited, or purged, at 
the great day m : a conjectural presumption, which I will not be 
bold to warrant. 

However, in the whole, it may be admitted, upon the princi- 
ples of reason, Scripture, and antiquity, that the remission in 
the Eucharist is not in every respect equal, or similar to the 
remission in Baptism, because of the different circumstances : 
nevertheless it is certain, in the general, that there is ordinarily 
remission in both, as there is ordinarily an application of the 
merits of Christ's all-sufficient sacrifice in both. 

j Vid. Cyrill. Hieros. Catech. xviii. Eusebius in Psal. xxxi. p. 120; in 

sect. 20. p. 295.6(1. Bened. Athanas. Psal. Ixxxiv. p. 525. 

ad Serap. Ep. iv. n. 13. p. 705. Gre- m Vid. Clemens Alex. Strom, iv. 

gor. Nazianz. Orat. xl. p. 641. num. 24. pp. 633, 634; Strom, vi. p. 

k Orig. contr. Gels. lib. iii. sect. 795. Cyrill. Hierosol. Catech. xv. n. 

51. p. 482. ed. Bened. 23. pp. 236, 237. 

1 Orig. in Psalm, xxxi. p. 645. 

ix. conferred in the EucJiarist. 233 

I must now further add, that the objection made against 
repeated forgiveness, upon repeated repentance in the Eucharist, 
would have been of much greater force than it really now is, 
were it not that this holy Sacrament appears to have been 
appointed as the strongest security against those very abuses 
which men are prone to make of the Divine mercy. The tAVO 
principal abuses are, first, the putting off repentance from day to 
day, fixing no time for it, as it is thought to be left at large, and 
to be acceptable at any time ; next, the resting content with a 
lame, partial, or unsincere repentance : against both which the 
appointment of this holy Sacrament is a kind of standing pro- 
vision, the best, it may be, that the nature of the case would 
admit of. To those who are apt to procrastinate, or loiter, it is 
an awakening call, obliging them the more strongly to fix upon 
some certain and determinate time for repentance : and to the 
superficial penitents, it is a kind of solemn lecture of sincerity 
and carefulness, under pain of being found guilty of trampling 
under foot the body and blood of Christ. And while it promises 
forgiveness to all that worthily receive, and to none else, it 
becomes a strong incitement to break off sins without delay, and 
to be particularly watchful and careful for the time to come. 
So far is the doctrine of remission in the Eucharist (when justly 
stated) from being any encouragement to sin, that it is quite 
the reverse, being indeed one of the strongest encouragements to 
a good life. But I proceed. 

3. Socinus and his followers appear much offended at the 
doctrine of remission in the Eucharist, (for fear, I presume, of 
admitting any merits of Christ's death,) and they labour all 
possible ways to run it down; sometimes misrepresenting it, 
sometimes ridiculing it, and sometimes putting on an air of 
grave reasoning. Socinus himself was content to throw a 
blunt censure upon it, as bordering upon idolatry". An in- 
jurious reflection, for which there was no colour; unless he first 

" 'Pleriqueipsoruminhiscequidem tiunt, qui earn propterea in sacrifi- 

regionibus credunt se, ilia digne ob- cium pro vivis et mortuis transfor- 

eunda, suorum peccatorum veniara et inanint, et idolum quoddam ex ea 

remissionem consequi : baud valde fecerunt.' Socin. Quod. Regn. Polon, 

diversum ab eo quod Papistae sen- p. 701. 

234 Remission of Sins CHAP. 

wilfully perverted the meaning, and falsely charged the Pro- 
testants with the opus operatum. 

Smalcius plainly put that false construction upon it, and then 
took the handle to ridicule it, as if any remission could be ex- 
tracted from the use of such common things as the bare symbols 
are . So ridiculous a mistake of the doctrine which he opposed, 
either shewed no quickness of apprehension, or no sincerity. 
Schlictingius followed the same blunder, and still with greater 
levity P : a certain argument, that he had no solid reasons to 
produce on that head. The Racovian Catechism of the first 
Latin edition, (A.D. 1609,) pleaded, that a man ought to be 
sure of his pardon <i in heaven, before he takes the Sacrament, 
and therefore could have no more pardon to receive here : that 
must be their meaning, if they intended it for an argument. 
However, the argument at best is a very lame one. For what- 
ever certainty of that nature any man may pretend to, it is 
capable of being renewed and reinforced by repeated assurances : 
and as we are taught continually to pray for forgiveness, so may 
we receive it continually, both in the Word aud Sacraments ; but 
more particularly in the Sacraments. In the next edition of that 
Catechism, (A.D. 1659,) that trifling plea was struck out, and 
another was substituted in its room ; which is to this effect, 
that remission cannot be conferred in the Eucharist, because 
commemoration only, and not remission, was the end of that rite 
by our Lord's account of it r . But here the suggestion is not 
true ; for our Lord himself has sufficiently intimated, (as I have 
before proved,) that remission of sins is one end of that service, 

'Quis enim de sua came, cum fide confirmatum ease oportet.' Ra- 
omnibusconcupiscentiis.crucifigenda cov. Catech. c. iii. 

cogitet, si usus panis et vini, qui quo- r 'Cum is finis ritus istius usur- 

tidie obvius est, possit remissionem pandi sit, ut beneficium a Christo 

peccatorum, &c. consequi ?' Smalc. nobis praestitum commemoremus, 

contr. Frantz. p. 333. seu annuntiemus, nee ullus alius 

P 'O facilem vero et expeditam praeter hunc sit a Christo indicatus 

adipiscendae salutis rationem, si tot finis ; apparet, non eo institutum esse 

tantaque bona, mica panis, et gutta ut aliquid illic beneficii, aliter quam 

vini possis consequi.' Schlicting. quati-nus digne observatus pietatis 

contr. Meisner. p. 799. Christianae pars est, a Christo suma- 

1 ' Qui vult digne coenae Domini mus.' Racov. Catech. c. iv. sect. 6. 
participare, eum de remissione pec- p. 230. 

catorum, ex parte Dei, certum ac 

ix. conferred in the Eucharist. 235 

in the very words of the institution s : and if he had not so 
plainly said it, the very nature of the act proclaims it, taking in 
what St. Paul has taught. There are more ends than one to be 
served by the same Sacrament, whether it be of Baptism or 
of the Eucharist : and all are consistent, because allied and 
subordinate. Not to mention that commemoration itself, rightly 
considered, strongly infers and implies present benefits ; as I 
have observed above l . Moreover the Socinians themselves are 
forced to allow other ends of the Sacrament, over and above the 
commemoration of Christ's death : namely, a declaration of their 
communion with Christ their head, and with their Christian 
brethren ; besides a further declaration of their spiritual feeding 
upon Christ, then and at all times, and of their looking upon his 
death as the seal of the covenant, and upon his doctrine as the 
food of the soul. Now if they think themselves at liberty to 
invent as many ends as they please, such as may suit with their 
other principles, why are we debarred from admitting such 
other ends of the Sacrament as Scripture plainly points out to 
us, and the reason also of the thing manifestly requires 1 From 
hence then it appears that the Socinian pleas in this case 
carry more of artificial management in them than of truth or 

However, it is visible from the last citation, that one principal 
drift is, to exclude God, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit, and 
all Divine influences, out of the Sacrament, and to make nothing 
more of it than a performance of man : and in this view they are 
content to account it a part of Christian piety. Ruarus, one of 
the shrewdest and learnedest of them, disliked their granting so 
much, and charged them, in a note of correction", with an incon- 
sistency in saying it: because every pious observance contributes, 
in some measure, towards remission of sins, and they had before 
absolutely denied any benefit at all that way. Schlictingius left 
this note of Ruarus without any reply ; though he replied to 

Matth. xxvi. 28. ad remissionem peccatorum nobis 

* See above, p. 71. prodest : quod tamen in initio quae- 
u ' Si pars est Christianae pietatis, stionis hujus, simpliciter negatum 

utique ad justificationem, atque ita fuit.' Ruari Notae, p. 27. 

236 Remission of Sins CHAP. 

several others which went along with it : which shews, either 
that he found it impossible to evade the doctrine of remission in 
this Sacrament, unless it were at the expense of self-contradic- 
tion ; or else, that he was willing, at length, to admit of it, pro- 
vided only they may claim remission as their due reward for the 
service, and not as indulged them for the merits of Christ's death 
and sacrifice therein commemorated. It must be owned, that 
Ruarus's hint on that head was acute, and came home to the 
purpose : for, as those men supposed all other requisites for 
remission to be implied in worthy receiving, and now added this 
part of Christian piety to the rest, it must of consequence follow, 
that remission of sins is granted upon it, by their own principles. 
So then, in the last result, they and we may seem to be nearly 
agreed as to the point of remission in or upon this service ; and 
the only remaining difference will be about the meritorious cause 
of it : and that will resolve into another question, discussed, in 
some measure, above ; namely, the question concerning the 
value, virtue, and efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ. 

4. There is an insidious way made use of, by some of our 
Socinians, for the undermining the doctrine of remission in the 
Eucharist : they depreciate the service, and the preparation 
proper to it, making both so slight, that no man could justly 
expect so Divine a grant from so contemptible a performance : 
' I know not,' says one, ' to what purpose so many superstitious 
books are written to teach men to prepare themselves for the 
memorial supper, when an honest intention and a reverent per- 
formance are sufficient both preparations and qualifications for 
and in all Gospel ordinances v . Here is no mention of faith, nor 
of repentance from dead works ; without which, undoubtedly, 
there can be no remission of sins, whether in the Sacrament or 
out of it. The proper answer to this preten.ce will fall under 
the head of worthy receiving, in a distinct chapter below. In 
the meanwhile, let it be considered, whether they who require 
sincere repentance as a necessary qualification for the holy Com- 
munion ? or they who labour to defeat that most excellent end 

* The Argument of the Unitarians w}tl) th Catholic Church, part i. 
p. i? ; printed A. p. 1699. 

ix. conferred in the Eucharist. 237 

and use of it, do most consult the true interest of religion and 
virtue ; which the Socinians would be thought much to befriend 
in what they teach on this head. 

I intended here to have closed this chapter, till it came into 
my mind that we have had some kind of dispute with the 
Romanists also, (as well as Socinians,) upon the point of remis- 
sion in the Eucharist. For the Romanists, as it seems, being 
apprehensive, that if the people be taught to expect pardon from 
God in receiving the Communion, they will think they need no 
other, and that thereupon masses, and indulgences, and other 
absolutions will sink in their value; I say, the Romanists 
considering this, have contrived, that venial sins only shall be 
pardoned upon reception of the Eucharist, but that mortal sins 
shall be remitted another way. Chemnitius, in his Examen, has 
taken notice of this matter, and charged it upon them with very 
little ceremony w . Bellarmiue, in reply, could not deny the 
main charge, as to their confining the eucharistical remission to 
venial sins only, or to mortal ones unknown ; but passing over 
the secret reasons or motives for the doctrine, he employs all his 
wit and learning to give the fairest colours to it x . Gerhard 
came after, and defended Chemnitius in that article, confuting 
Bellarminey. I perceive not that the learned cardinal, with all 
his acuteness, was able to prove anything with respect to the 
main question, more than this, (which has been allowed above,) 
that Baptism is emphatically, or eminently, the Sacrament of 
remission, and the Eucharist of spiritual growth : and while he 
is forced to acknoAvledge that venial sins are remitted in the 

w ' Remissionem peccatorum gravi- tioribus peccatis. lit igitur satisfac- 
orum et mortalium, quae post Baptis- tionis suas et reliquas veniarum nun- 
mum commissa sunt, decent quaeren- dinationes retineant acerbedimicant, 
dam et impetrandam esse nostra con- in vero usu Eucharistiae non fieri ap- 
tritione, confessione, satisfactione, sa- plicationem remissionis peccatorum.' 
crificio missae, et aliis modis. Vident Chemnit. Exam. Concil. Trident, 
autem totam illam veniarum structu- pare ii. p. 70. 

ram collapsuram, si remissio ilia et * Bellarmin. torn. iii. lib. iv. de 

reconciliatio quaeratur in corpore et Eucharist, c. 17, iS, 19. 

sanguine Christi. Ne tamen J' Gerhard. Loc. Comm. torn. v. de 

tribuant Eucharistiae, loquuntur de Sacr. Coen. c. xx. p. 175, &c. Com- 

venialibus, hoc esfc, sicut Jesuitae in- pare Vines, Treatise of the Lord's 

terpretantur, de levioribus et minu- Supper, p. 328 ; printed A.D. 1657, 

238 Sanctifying Grace CHAP. 

Eucharist, and unknown mortal ones, as often as necessary 7 , it is 
obvious to perceive, that it was not any love of truth, or strength 
of argument on that side, which withheld him from granting 
more. His strongest plea, which all the rest do in a manner 
resolve into, is no more than this ; that as the worthy commu- 
nicant is supposed to bring with him true faith and sincere 
repentance to the Lord's table, he comes pardoned thither, and 
can have no pardon to take out there upon his receiving the 
Eucharist. I mention not how the argument recoils upon his 
own hypothesis. The true answer is, that the grace of remission, 
or justification, is progressive, and may be always improving, as 
before noted* : and whatever pardon we may conceive ourselves 
to be entitled to before, or to be then in possession of, yet it is 
no slight advantage to have the same solemnly renewed, esta- 
blished, ratified, and sealed in the -holy Communion, by a formal 
application there made of the merits of the grand atonement, 
in which only, after our pel-forming the conditions, our remission 


Of tJie Sanctifying Grace of the Holy Spirit conferred in tJie 


The Greek x<*P ls i the Latin gratia, the English grace, is 
a word of some latitude, admitting of various acceptations : I 
need not mention all, but such only as are most for our present 

1 'Posset etiam dici Eucharistiam Worthy Comm. p. 43. 'The Sacra- 

applicare haereditatem, etiam quan- ment ministers pardon, as pardon is 

turn ad remissionem peccatorum, sed ministered in this world, by parts. 

turn solum cum ea est necessaria; In the usual methods of God, par- 

nimirum cum ii qui non indigne ac- don is proportionable to our repent- 

cedunt, habent aliqua peccata mor- ance.' p. 52. 'If we find that we in- 

talia, quorum tamen conscientiam crease in duty, then we may look 

non habent.' Bellarm. ibid. c. xix. p. upon the tradition of the sacramen- 

655. tal symbols, as a direct consignation 

a See above, p. 217. Bishop Tay- of pardon. Not that it is completed : 

lor's doctrine on this head, as it lies for it is a work of time ; it is as long 

scattered in distant pages, may be a doing, as repentance is perfecting, 

worth noting. 'Justification and ... It is then working : and if we go 

sanctification are continued acts : on in duty, God will proceed to finish 

they are like the issues of a fountain his methods of grace. &c. . . . And 

into its receptacles. God is always this he is pleased, by the Sacrament, 

giving, and we are always receiving.' all the way to consign.' p. 74. 

x. conferred in the Eucharist. 239 

purpose. Grace, in the general, signifies favour, mercy, indul- 
gence, bounty : in particular, it signifies a gift, and more especi- 
ally a spiritual gift, and in a sense yet more restrained, the gift 
of sanctification, or of such spiritual aids as may enable a man 
both to will and to do according to what God has commanded. 
The last which I have named appears to be the most prevailing 
acceptation of the word grace at this day, derived from ancient 
usage, and common consent, which gives the law to forms of 
speech, and to the interpretation thereof. The use of the word 
in the New Testament is various, sometimes larger, sometimes 
stricter, often doubtful which. I will not be positive, as to 
several texts where the word grace occurs, and seemingly in the 
strict sense, that they must necessarily be taken according to 
such precise meaning, and can bear no larger, or no other con- 
struction : as where the ' grace of our Lord Jesus Christ' is 
spoken of b ; or where grace, mercy, and peace are implored ; or 
grace and peace d ; or where the grace of God is mentioned 6 . In 
several texts of that sort, the word grace may be understood in 
the stricter sense, but may also admit of the larger : in which, 
however, the grace of sanctification must be included among 
others. The texts which seem to be most expressive of the 
limited sense, now in use, are such as these : ' Great grace was 
upon them all f .' ' The grace of God bestowed on the churches 
of Macedonia 8.' ' My grace is sufficient for theeV Grow in 
grace '.' ' Let us have grace, whereby we may serve God 
acceptably J.' ' God giveth grace unto the humble k .' In these 
and the like places, the word grace, most probably, signifies 
what we now commonly mean by that name : or if any larger 
meaning be supposed, yet it is certainly inclusive of the other, 
signifying that and more. It is not very material whether we 

b Rom. xvi. 20, 24. i Cor. xvi. xx. 24. I Cor. i. 4 ; iii. 10 ; xv. 10. 

23. 2 Cor. xiii. 14. Gal. vi. 18. Phil. 2 Cor. i. 12 ; vi. i. Ephes. iii. 7. 

iv. 23. i Thess.v. 28. 2 Thess. iii. 18. Tit. ii. n. i Pet. iv. 10. 
Philem. 25. Revel, xxii. 21. f Acts iv. 33 : compare verse 31. 

c i Tim. i. 2. 2 Tim. i. 2. Tit. i. 4. 2 Cor. viii. I. 
2 John 3. h 2 Cor. xii. 9. 

d I Pet. i. 2. 2 Pet. i. 2. Revel. i 2 Pet. iii. 18. 
i. 4. i H b. xii. 28. 

e Acts xiii. 43 ; xiv. 26; xv. 40 ; k Jam. iv. 6. i Pet. v. 5. 

240 Sanctifying Grace CHAP. 

understand the word grace, in the New Testament, in the 
comprehensive or restrained sense, since it would be disputing 
only about words or names. The sanctifying operations of the 
Holy Spirit of God upon the minds of men may be abundantly 
proved from the New Testament : and so it is of less moment 
to inquire what names they go under, while we are certain of 
the things. The phrase ' of grace,' or ' sanctifying grace,' is suffi- 
ciently warranted by its ancient standing in the Church 1 , so 
that I need not dwell longer upon it, but may proceed directly 
to shew, that what we commonly call the grace of sanctificatiou 
is conferred in the Eucharist. 

1. I argue, first, from the participation of Christ's death, with 
its fruits, in the Eucharist, according to the doctrine of St. Paul, 
I Cor. x. 1 6, insinuated also in the words of the institution, as 
explained at large in a chapter above. They who so partake of 
Christ, do of course partake of the Spirit of Christ : it cannot be 
otherwise upon Christian principles taught in the New Testament. 
If any man is Christ's, he has the Spirit of God dwelling in him m . 
And this Spirit is the source and fountain of righteousness and 
true holiness". And no one can be made an acceptable offering 
unto God, but he who is first sanctified by the Holy Spirit . 

2. The same thing will be proved, by undeniable consequence, 
from our Lord's doctrine of the import of spiritual feeding laid 
down in John vi. For since it has been before shewn, that they 
who do receive worthily do spiritually feed upon Christ, and are 
thereby made partakers of all the privileges thereto belonging, 
it plainly follows that they must have Christ dwelling in them P ; 
and if Christ, they have the Spirit also of Christ, who is insepa- 
rable from him. Therefore the sanctification of the Spirit is 
conveyed in the Eucharist, along with the other spiritual bless- 
ings, which suppose and imply it, and cannot be understood 
without it, upon Scripture principles. 

1 See some account of the eccle- Scripta, p. 761, &c. Magdeb. 1735- 

siastical use of the word grace, in m Rom. viii. 9. I Cor. vi. 17. 

Nelson's Life of Bishop Bull, p. 519, n Rom. viii. 10, 14. I Cor. vi. n. 

&c. Vossius, Histor. Pelag. lib. iii. 2 Thess. ii. 13. 

par. i. Thes. ii. Joh. Just. Von Einem. Rom. xv. 16. 

Select. Animadv. ad Joh. Clerici P John vi. 56. 

x. conferred in the Eucharist. 241 

3. A further argument may be drawn from the known analogy 
there is between the two Sacraments, taken together with those 
several texts which speak directly of the sanctification of the Spirit 
conferred in Baptism^ ; or an argument may be drawn a fortiori, 
in this manner : if the putting on Christ (which is done in Baptism) 
carries with it a conveyance of the Holy Spirit ; much more does 
the eating or drinking Christ, which is done in the Eucharist. 

4. But to argue yet more directly, (though indirect arguments, 
where the connection is clear and certain, as in this case, are not 
the less conclusive,) we may next draw a proof of the same 
doctrine from the express words of St. Paul, where he says, 
' By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body and have 
been all made to drink into one Spirit 1 ".' That is to say, by 
one and the same Spirit before spoken of 8 , we Christians (as 
many of us as are so more than in name) are in Baptism made 
one mystical body of Christ, and have been all made to drink of 
the sacramental cup in the Eucharist ; whereby the same Spirit 
hath again united us, yet more perfectly, to Christ our head, in 
the same mystical body. Such appears to be the natural and 
obvious sense of the place : which accordingly has been so 
understood by judicious interpreters, ancient * and modern u . I 
shall not dissemble it, that several ancient interpreters, as well 
as some moderns, have understood the whole text of Baptism 
only ; interpreting the former part of the outward washing, and 
the latter part of the Spirit accompanying it v . But, it seems, 
they did not well consider, that the concurrence of the Spirit in 
Baptism had been sufficiently insinuated before in the former 
part of the verse ; ' By one Spirit are we all baptized,' &o^ 
And therefore to interpret Spirit again of the same Sacrament^ 
appears to border too nearly upon tautology : neither did they 
sufficiently reflect, how harsh a figure that of drinking is, if 

i John iii. 5. i Cor. vi. n. mond, Locke, Wells. Vitringa, Ob- 

Ephes. v. 26. Tit, iii. 5. serv. Sacr, lib. v. cap. 7. pp. 109, 

r i Cor. xii. 13, 114. 

8 I Cor. xii. 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, II. T Pelagius, under the name of Je- 

* Chrysostom. in loc. torn. v. p. rome ; and Hilary the deacon, under 

324. ed. Paris. Damascen. in loc. the name of Ambrose : as likewise 

Calvin, Beza, Peter Martyr, Theophylact in loc., -and perhaps 

Gerhard, Grotius, Gataker, Ham- more. 


343 Sanctifying Grace CHAP. 

applied to Baptism ; when putting on the Spirit (as is elsewhere 
said of Christ, with respect to that Sacrament w ) might have 
been much more proper. They may seem also to have forgot, 
or not to have considered, how suitable and pertinent it was 
to the Apostle's argument, to refer to both Sacraments in that 
place, as I shall now make appear. 

It might be highly proper, and much to the purpose, when 
the Apostle was mentioning Baptism, as one bond of mystical 
union, to take notice also of the Eucharist, as another ; which it 
certainly was, according to his own doctrine in the same Epistle*. 
Indeed, it might be thought a kind of omission, and in some 
measure diminishing the force of his argument in this place, had 
he referred but to one Sacrament, when there was just occasion, 
or the like occasion, for referring to both. His design was to 
set forth the inviolable union of Christians, and to represent the 
several ties by which they were bound together. He knew that 
the Eucharist was a strong cement of that mystical union, as 
well as the other Sacrament ; for he had himself declared as 
much, by saying elsewhere, 'We being many are one body, being 
all partakers of that one bread.' It was therefore very natural here 
again to take notice of the Eucharist, when he was enumerating 
the bonds of union, and amongst them particularly the Sacra- 
ment of Baptism, which would obviously lead to the mentioning 
this other Sacrament. Accordingly, he has briefly and elegantly 
made mention of this other, in the words ' made to drink into 
one Spirit.' Where made to drink, but in the Eucharist ? He 
had formerly signified the mystical union under the emblem of 
one loaf: and now he chooses to signify the same again under 
the emblem of one cup, (an emblem, wherein Ignatius, within 
fifty years after, seems to have followed him 7,) both belonging 
to one and the same Eucharist, both referring to one and the 
same mystical head. Dr. Claget well argues against the Roman- 
ists from this text, as follows : ' St. Paul thought the observation 
.of the two institutions of our Saviour (viz. Baptism and the 
Communion of the holy table) was a sufficient proof that 

w Gal. iii. 27. * I Cor. x. 16, 17. 

y *Ey Troriipwv $ tvaxriy -rov <d(j.aros twrov. Ignat. ad Philadelph. cap. 4. 

x. conferred in the Eucharist. 243 

believers were one body : and we have reason to believe, that if 
he had known there were other Sacraments he would not have 
omitted the mention of them here, where he proves the unity of 
the Church by Baptism and communion of the body and 
blood of Christ. It is something to our purpose, that St. Paul 
owns no more than these, where he industriously proves that 
Christians are one body by these z .' If this reasoning be just, 
as it appears to be, and if St. Paul knew (as he certainly did 
know) that the Eucharist has some share in making Christians 
one body, as well as the other Sacrament, it manifestly follows 
that he could not well omit the mention of it in this place. I 
should take notice, that our very judicious Archbishop Sharpe has 
pressed the same argument, in a fuller and still stronger manner, 
from the same text a ; and that the Protestants in general have 
made the like use of the text in their disputes with the Roman- 
ists, against multiplying Sacraments, or against mutilating the 
Sacrament of the Eucharist by taking away the cup from it \ 
So that besides commentators, in great numbers, thus inter- 
preting this text, there is the concurring judgment of many or 
most Protestant Divines confirming the same construction. 

Nevertheless, Socinus, having formed a project to throw off 
water-baptism, laboured extremely to elude the interpretation 
before mentioned. He considered, that if the latter part of it 
were interpreted of the external service of the Eucharist, then 
the former part must of course be understood of external Bap- 
tism : besides that he was not willing to allow that any inward 
grace went along with either Sacrament. Such were his motives 
for eluding the true meaning of this text : his pretexts, or 
colourings, were as here follow : 

i. He pleaded, that partaking of the Eucharist is never once 
represented in the New Testament by that particular part of it, 
the drinking. He acknowledges that the whole Service is some- 

1 Claget, vol. i. Serm. x. p. 263. loco pertendunt, contra substractio- 

* Sharpe, vol. vii. Serrn. v. vi. nem calicis in CommunioneRomaiia,) 

p. 1 06. &c. Serm. x. p. 230. ac alibi per solam pania fractionem 

b 'Nihil obstat quo minus synec- designatur. Acts ii. 42, 46; xx. 7.' 

dochice hoc loco potionis ac poculi Maresius, Hydra Socinianismi, torn. 

nomine explicetur Eucharistia, (quod iii. p. 835. 

Protestantes omnes merito ex hoc 

K 2 

244 Sanctifying Grace CHAP. 

times signified by the other part, (the nobler part, in his 
judgment,) viz. the eating, or breaking bread ; but that it 
should be signified by drinking only, the meaner part of the 
Sacrament, he could not be persuaded to allow c . 

But he seems to me to have been over delicate in this matter, 
and more scrupulous than need required. For, since the whole 
Service (as he is forced to confess) may be signified by one part, 
while the other is understood; why not by the drinking, as well 
as by the eating 1 Or why must the eating be looked upon as 
the nobler and better part of the two, in this instance especially, 
when the blood of Christ (the most precious blood of Christ, so 
much spoken of in the New Testament) is the thing signified d ? 
But supposing the eating, or the meat, to be the nobler of the 
two, then the New Testament, one would think, has paid a pro- 
per respect to it, by denominating the whole from it more than 
once ; though taking the liberty to pay some regard also to the 
other part, by denominating the whole from it once at least, if no 
more. The Apostle might have particular reasons for doing it 
here, because, having mentioned washing just before, as belong- 
ing to one Sacrament, he might think that drinking would best 
answer to it in the other Sacrament, as water and wine are more 
analogous than water and bread e . Or since the Apostle had 
signified Christian unity before f , under the emblem of sacra- 
mental meat, he might choose the rather now to represent the 
same unity under the emblem of sacramental drink, being that 
there is as properly one cup, as there is one loaf. 

2. Socinus and Volkelius further plead, that had the Apostle 
intended to speak of the Lord's Supper, he would have used the 

c ' Cur quaeso Paulus coenam Do- tingit.' Socin. de Bapt. Aquae, cap. 

minicam cum Baptismo collaturus viii. Cp. Volkel. de Ver. Eelig. lib. 

potionis tantum mentionem fecisset, vi. cap. 14. p. 684, alias 835. 

nonetiam comestionis, sive cibi, quae d It may be noted, that theancients, 

praecipua ex duabus quodammodo when they made any distinction, sup- 

coenae illius partibus censenda est, et posed the cup, the drinking, to be 

cujus solius nomine alicubi tota coena the nobler part of the two, as being 

intelligitur, ut I Cor. xi 33. . . . Fre- the finishing and perfecting part, 

quentissime in Sacris Literis solius See Salmasius de Transubstantiatione 

cibi, aut etiam panis mentione facta, contr. Grot. pp. 280-284. 

ipse quoque potus intelligitur : id e Cp. Hoornbeeck, Socin. Confut. 

quod, saltern in coena Domini, nun- torn. iii. p. 381. 

quam potionis solius nomine fieri con- f i Cor. x. 17. 

x. conferred in the Eucharist. 245 

word iroTi6p.f6a, to denote the time present, not (Troriadrifjifv, which 
refers to time past : for the Lord's Supper is what Christians con- 
tinually partake of with repeated attendance, and so is never wholly 
past or done with, like Baptism, which is but once submitted to?. 
Now, in answer to this reasoning, I shall not insist, as I justly 
might, upon the known latitude of the aorists, which are indefinite 
as to time ; nor upon any enallage of tenses, which is frequent 
in tScripture ; but allowing that St. Paul is to be understood of 
the time past, in that instance, I say, it is no just objection 
against interpreting the text of the Eucharist. The Apostle is 
there speaking of the union of Christians as then actually subsist- 
ing, and therefore made before he spake of it ; made by Baptism 
and the Lord's Supper, considered as previous to that union, and 
therefore past. He had nothing to do- with future communions, 
so far as his argument was concerned : none but past com- 
munions could have any share in making or strengthening that 
union, which subsisted before he spake of it. Therefore it 
might be proper in both the instances, to make use of a verb of 
the preter tense, referring to time past. Communions which are 
not, or only will be, or may be, unite nothing, effect nothing in 
the mean season, but would have been foreign to the Apostle's 
argument, which looked only to what had been done, and had 
had its effect already upon the union then subsisting. The 
Eucharist in that view was a thing past, as much as Baptism ; 
and so the verbs in both instances were rightly chosen, and aptly 
answer to each other h : We have been all baptized, and We have 
been all made to drink i, &c. 

s ' Si Paulus coenam Dominicam in- praeteiitipotius quampraesentis tem- 

tellexisset, non verbo praeteriti tern- porisverboexprimisolent: haecvero, 

poris " potavimu," sed " potamua" cum et in posterum, qualibet se offer- 

praesentis usus fuisset : cum ea coena ente occasione peragenda sit, rectius 

non a quolibet Christiano homiue et communi consuetudini loquendi 

plane et omniuo jam manducata fue- convenientius praesentis temporis 

rit aliquando, sed identidem in pos- verbo effertur.' Volkelius, lib. vi. 

tt-rum, ubi facultas detur, manducari cap. 14. p. 68.;, alias 836. 
debeat.' Socinus de Bapt. Aquae, h Cp. Hoornbeeck, torn. iii. p. 387. 

cap. viii. pp. 88, 89. Maresius Hydra, torn. iii. p. 836. 

' Adde quod non '' potavimus," sed ' Tlavrts els ev <njua t^airTiffOrtfietf 

" potamus" dixisset, si de coena Do- . . . irdvrts els ev irvev/j.0. (irortvBrintv. 

minica locutus fuisset. . . . Actiones As to some few copies here reading 

quippe quas semel perfecisse satis est, Tnfyio for irvtvpa, I refer to Dr. Mill, 

346 Sanctifying Grace CHAP. 

3. Socinus and Volkelius further urge, (which looks the most 
like an argument of anything they have,) that the Apostle, in 
that chapter, refers only to the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, and 
therefore cannot reasonably be understood either of Baptism or 
the Eucharist, which were common to all Christians, and not to 
the gifted onlyJ. But it is unfortunate for this objection, that 
the Apostle should so emphatically word it twice over, We have 
all &c., as it were on purpose to prevent its being understood to 
relate to the gifted only. The universality of the Apostle's 
expression is a much stronger argument for interpreting him of 
the Sacraments, than anything else in the context can be for 
understanding the words of the extraordinary gifts : for it is 
plain, and is on all hands confessed, that the extraordinary gifts 
were not common to all, or to many, but rather peculiar to a few 
only in comparison. But to answer more directly to the pretence 
drawn from the context, it may be observed, that the design of 
the Apostle in that chapter does not only well suit with the 
interpretation we contend for, but is better cleared upon that 
foot than upon any other. His design was to prevent, as much as 
possible, any emulation between the gifted and ungifted brethren. 
How does he execute it ? By representing how many things 
were common to all, and how far all of them participated of 
the Spirit, one way or other, i. They all owned Christ Jesus 
for their Lord, which none could do 'but by the Holy Ghost k ;' 
therefore they were so far upon a level, with respect to the favour 
of the Holy Spirit. 2. Those extraordinary gifts, imparted to a 
few, were really intended for the common benefit of the whole 
body : they were given to every one of the gifted, to profit others 
withal 1 . The same Spirit was present to the whole Church, 
to all true members of it, in both Sacraments m ; so that they did 
not only reap the benefits of what the gifted men did, but they 

who vindicates the present reading, p. 84. 'Paulus isto in loco de variis 

But the sense might be the same Spiritus Sancti donis disserit, quibus 

either way, because the preceding Deus per Filium suum primam illam 

words, ' by one Spirit,' might be ap- Ecclesiara mirum in moduin locuple- 

plied to both parts of the sentence. taverat.' Volkelius, lib. vi. cap. 14. 

1 'De donis spiritualibus ; ut uni- p. 675, alias 815. 
cuique totum caput accurate legenti k i Cor. xii. 3. 1 i Cor. xii. 7. 
constare poterit.' Socinus:, cap. viii. m i Cor. xii. 1 3. 

x. conferred in the Eucharist. 247 

had themselves an immediate communion with the self-same 
Spirit, in as useful, though not altogether so glaring a way. 
4. However pompous those shining gifts might appear, and be 
apt to dazzle, yet there were other gifts more excellent n by far 
than they, and common to all good Christians ; namely, the gifts 
of faith, hope, and charity , from the same Spirit?. Such 
appears to be the scope and connection of the Apostle's discourse 
in that chapter and the chapter following : and it is so far from 
proving that the text which we are now considering belongs not 
to the Sacraments, that, on the contrary, it very much confirms 
that construction <>, 

Enough, I presume, hath been said for the vindicating our 
construction of this text against the forced glosses and unnatural 
evasions of Socinus and his followers : though some of them, 
either more acute or more ingenuous than the rest, have not 
scrupled to give up the new construction, so far as to under- 
stand the text of both Sacraments r . 

The construction of the text being thus far fixed and settled, 
it remains now that we draw the just conclusion from it, and so 
wind up our argument. If the drinking of the sacramental cup 
is drinking into one Spirit, the Spirit of God, then the Eucha- 
rist, duly administered and duly received, is a medium by which 
we ordinarily partake of the same Spirit, and consequently of 
the sanctifying gifts or graces of the Spirit. By this we under- 
stand, how he that is joined unto Christ our Lord is one spirit 8 
with him : because that Spirit who is essentially one with him 
is sacramentally united with us. And as Christ dwelleth in all 
those who spiritually feed upon him*, so are all such the temple 
of the Holy Ghost" ; and while they are so, they are sanctified 

n I Cor. xiL 31. Baptismum tantum, sed ad coenam 

i Cor. xiii. 1-13. Domini quoque respici putant : 
P That appears to be insinuated by utrumque enim institutum nos tarn 

the Apostle there : but elsewhere he ad unitatem et communionem unius 

expressly teaches, that all such Chris- corporis Ecclesiae accedere, quam in 

tian virtues are the fruits of the Spirit, unitate corporis ejusdem manere tes- 

Gal. v. 22. Ephes. v. 9. tatur.' Sam. Przipcovius in loc. p. 93. 

1 Compare Clem. Alexandrin. Pae- i Cor. vi. 17. 
dag. lib. i. cap. n. pp. 106, 107. e John vi. 56. 

T 'Nee ausim multum ab iis dis- u i Cor. iii. 16 ; vi. 19. 2 Cor. vi. 
sentire, qui in istis yerbis non ad 1.6. Ephes. ii. 21, 23. i Pet. ii. 5. 

248 Sanctifying Grace CHAP. 

both in body and soul. Such sanctification carries in it all that 
the Scripture reckons up among the fruits of the Spirit, as 
enriching the soul v ; and likewise all that concerns the immor- 
talizing of the body x , and sealing the whole man to future glory v. 
All these blessings and privileges are conferred in the Eucharist, 
to them who receive worthily ; because the Spirit is conferred in 
it, who is the fountain of them all, and whose gracious presence 
supposes them. 

In confirmation of what hath been advanced upon Scripture 
principles, it may now be proper to descend to Fathers, who had 
the same Scriptures before them, and whose sentiments, if con- 
curring, may be of use to give us the more abundant satisfaction 
in the present article. I have occasionally, in the course of these 
papers, cited several passages which speak expressly or implicitly 
of sanctification, as conferred in or by the Eucharist. I shall 
not here repeat the same at full length, but shall throw them 
together in a summary way, to serve as hints for recollection. 
What has been cited above 2 from Ignatius, Justin, and Irenaeus, 
of the beneficial nature of the Sacrament, necessarily infers or 
implies the graces of the Holy Spirit. 

Clemens of Alexandria, upon another occasion, has been cited, 
expressly saying that they who receive the Eucharist with faith 
are ' sanctified both in body and soul a .' Tertullian says, that 
the body is fed with the body and blood of Christ, that the ' soul 
may be replenished with God V In like manner, Origen asserts, 
that the Eucharist does sanctify them that ' use it as they 
ought c .' The same thing is intimated by Cyprian of that time, 
under some variety of expression d . Cyril of Jerusalem ex- 
pressly says, that the heavenly bread and salutary cup 'sanctify 
both body and soul e .' Gaudentius Brixiensis, M'hom I have not 
quoted before, says of the Eucharistical food, that it ' sanctifies 

Gal. v. 22. Ephes. v. 9. viii. p. 330. See above, cap. vii. p. 152. 

Rom. viii. 10, u. c Origen. in Matt. p. 254. Contr. 

2 Cor. i. 22. Ephes. i. 13, 14; iv. 30. Cels. lib. viii. p. 766. See above, 

Sea above, pp. 101, 141-147. cap. v. pp. 85, 86. 

Clem. Alex. Paedag. lib. ii. cap. d Cyprian. Ep. 54, 63. See above, 

2. p. 178. See above, cap. vii. p. cap. vii. p. 155. 

1 48. e Cyrill. Hieros. Mystag. iv. p. 32 1 . 

b Tertullian. de Eesurr. Cam. cap. See above, cap. vii. p. 158. 

x. conferred in ihe Eucharist. 249 

even them who consecrate it f .' Lastly, Cyril of Alexandria 
maintains, that faithful communicants are 'sanctified by being 
partakers of the holy flesh and precious blood of Christ, the 
Saviour of us all .' These testimonies might suffice to shew 
how unanimous the ancients were, in asserting sanctification, as 
conferred in the Eucharist. 

But for the further confirmation or illustration of this par- 
ticular, I shall now proceed to consider what the ancients taught 
concerning the descent or illapse of the Holy Spirit upon the 
symbols or upon the communicants in this holy solemnity. 
Which I the rather choose to do, that I may at the same time 
clear up that important article, in some measure, and remove 
some common mistakes. 

To give the reader a just idea of tke whole thing, it will be 
necessary to begin with the Sacrament of Baptism, wherein the 
like descent or illapse of the Holy Ghost was expected, and 
where the like invocation obtained very early ; sooner,. I con- 
ceive, than in the service of the Eucharist, so far as may be 
judged from the records now remaining. The form of Baptism, 
probably, might give the first handle for it, as it ran in the name 
of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Or, there appeared suffi- 
cient warrant in the New Testament for beseeching God to send 
the Holy Spirit, since our Lord had promised that his heavenly 
Father would 'give the Holy Spirit to them that would ask 
him 11 .' Where could they more properly ask it than in their 
Sacramental Offices, in that of Baptism especially, when the 
New Testament makes such frequent mention of the Holy Spirit, 
as assisting to it, or presiding in it * ? Indeed, we find no express 
mention in the New Testament of any ordinary descent or illapse 
of the Spirit in either Sacrament, nor any direct precept for a 
special invocation of that kind : neither can we be certain of 
apostolical practice as to that particular. The custom might 

f 'Consecrantes sanctificat conse- Cyrilli et Synod. Alesandr. Epist. 

cratus.' Gaudent. Brix. de Exod. ii. apud Binium, vol. ii. p. 210. Cp. 

p. 806. Theophil. Alexandrin. Pasch. i. in- 

8 'Ayiatyfit 0a neroxot yev6/j.fvot TT)J ter Opp. Hieron. torn. iv. p. 698. 

Tt aytas (rapids, Kol rov n^iov a'/jua- k Luke xi. 13. 

TOS rov jcd.vruv rjp.wi' <7(er?tpos Xptarov. ' See above, in this chapter, p. 241 . 

250 Sanctifying Grace CHAP. 

commence in the apostolical age, or it might come in later : but 
whenever it commenced, it seems to have been grounded upon 
such Scripture principles as I have just now hinted. 

Tertullian (about A.D. 200) is, I think, the first who speaks 
anything plainly and fully to this matter k . He supposes that 
ever since 'the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the 
waters 1 ,' all waters have been privileged for receiving the Spirit, 
and becoming signs and instruments of sanctification, upon prayer 
made to God : particularly, in Baptism, after prayer has been 
sent up, the Holy Ghost comes down upon the waters, and sanc- 
tifies them, yea and gives them a sanctifying quality. But he 
supposes the angel of Baptism to be sent beforehand, to prepare 
the way for the reception of the Spirit ; which he endeavours 
to illustrate from some resembling cases in the New Testament 11 . 
After the angel's performing his part upon the waters, the Holy 
Spirit descended in person on the parties coming to be baptized, 
and rested, as it were, upon the waters?. So writes our author : 
and the true meaning or result of all is, that the Holy Spirit, by 
his coming, sanctifies the persons in the use of those waters, or 
use of that service <J. Allowances must be made for something of 

k ' Omnes aquae de pristina originis they sometimes mention, besides the 
praerogativasacramentumsanctifica- angel of Baptism, (which means any 
tionis consequuntur, invocato Deo: or every angel so employed,) the angel 
supervenit enim statim Spiritus de also of prayer, angel of repentance, 
caelis, et aquis superest, sanctificans angel of peace, and angel of light, or 
eas de semetipso ; et ita sanctificatae the like : such manner of speaking 
vim sanctificandi combibunt.' Ter- and thinking was just and innocent, 
tullian. de Baptism, cap. iv. p. 225. till the succeeding abuses by angel- 
1 Gen. i. 2. worship made it almost necessary for 
m Tertull. ibid. cap. vi. ' Angelus wise men to lay it aside. 
Baptismi arbiter superventuro Spi- P 'Tune ille sanctissimus Spiritus 
ritui Sancto vias dirigit ablutione super emundata et benedicta corpora 
delictorum, quam fides impetrat, ob- libens a Patre descendit, super Bap- 
signata in Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu tismi aquas, tanquampristinamsedem 
Sancto.' p. 226. recognoscens conquiescit, columbae 
n John v. 4. Matt. iii. 3. figura dilapsus in Doininum, ut natu- 
It is frequent with the ancients ra,'&c. Tertull. ibid, cap.viii. p. 227. 
to speak of the offices of angels, which ' Eadem dispositione spiritalis 
they supposed to be employed in effectus, terrae, id est, carni nostrae, 
ministering to God for the heirs of emergenti de lavacro post vetera de- 
salvation, according to Heb. i. 14. licta, columba Sancti Spiritus advo- 
And according to their respective lat, pacem Dei adferens, emissa de 
offices, they assigned them names, caelis, ubi Ecclesia est area figurata." 
having no other rule to go by. So Tertull. ibid. cap. viii. p. 227. 

x. conferred in the Eucharist. 25 * 

oratorical flight and figure, contrived for ornament, and to make 
the more lively impression : it would be wrong to conceive, that 
every pool, pond, or river, in which any person happened to be 
baptized, contracted any abiding holiness from that time for- 
wards, or that it was not left open to all common uses as before. 
It is evident that Tertullian, where he came to explain his notion, 
and, as it were, to correct his looser and less accurate expressions, 
did not suppose the waters to be so much as the medium, properly 
speaking, of sanctification ; but he conceived the illapse of the 
Spirit upon the persons to come afterwards, when the washing 
was over and done with r . I shall only note further, with re- 
spect to these passages of Tertullian, that it cannot be certainly 
concluded from them, that a formal prayer for the descent of the 
Holy Spirit was in use at that time : but from his saying that 
immediately after invocation of God, such descent followed, and 
from his adding afterwards, that in or by the benediction the 
Spirit was called and invited 8 , I look upon it as extremely pro- 
bable *, that the practice did then obtain, in the African churches, 
formally to pray for the descent of the Holy Ghost, either before 
the immersion or after, (upon the imposition of hands,) or 
perhaps both before and after. 

Our next author is Origen, (about A.D. 240,) not that he 
directly says anything of the descent of the Spirit in Baptism, or 
of any prayer made use of for that purpose : but he occasionally 
drops some things which may give light to the present question. 
His notion was, that the Holy Spirit, whose office it is to sanc- 
tify, operates not at all upon inanimate things, nor upon persons 
of obdurate wickedness, but upon those only who are capable of 

r ' Eestituitur homo Deo, ad simi- benedictionem advocans et invitans 

litudinem ejus qui retro ad imaginem Spiritura Sanctum.' cap. viii. pp. 226, 

Dei fuerat. . . . Eecipit enim ilium Dei 227. 

Spiritum, quern tune de afflatu ejus * It might be, that upon a benedic- 
acceperat, sed post amiserat per delic- tion formed in general terms, Chris- 
tum. Non quod in aquis Spiritum tians might expect the illapse of the 
Sanctum consequamur, sed in aqua Spirit : but it appears more natural 
emun.iati sub angelo, Spiritui Sancto to think, from what Tertullian here 
praeparamur.' Ibid. cap. v. vi. p. says, that they directly and formally 
226. prayed for it. 

8 ' Dehinc manus imponitur, per 

2 52 Sanctifying Grace CHAP. 

receiving his sanctifying influences u . Now from his saying that 
the Holy Spirit operates not on things inanimate, it must follow, 
that he thought not at that time of any descent of the Holy 
Ghost upon the waters of Baptism, but upon the persons only, 
those that were worthy. Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, in 
the decline of the fourth century, charged his doctrine with that 
consequence, and thereupon condemned it, as overturning the con- 
secration of the waters of Baptism, supposed to be made by the 
coming of the Holy Ghost upon them x . But it is certain that 
Origen did admit of a consecration of the water y, though he might 
not perhaps explain it in the manner which Theophilus most ap- 
proved of, one hundred and fifty years after : and it is his constant 
doctrine, that the Baptism of the Spirit goes along with the out- 
ward washing, wherever there is no obstacle on the part of the 
recipient z . Nay r he scrupled not to admit, that ' the Spirit of 
God now moves upon the face of the waters a ' of Baptism, alluding 
to Gen. i. 2 ; so that Origen could not be much out of the way 
upon this article : but this we may collect from him, that, pro- 
perly speaking, the work of the Spirit in Baptism was upon the 
persons, when fitly qualified, rather than upon the outward ele- 
ment ; and that the Spirit's coming upon the water, and other 
the like phrases, ought not to be too rigorously interpreted, but 
should be understood with due grains of allowance. 

A late learned writer, apologizing for Origen, takes notice, 
that Chrysostom was very positive for the illapse of the Spirit on 
the outward symbols ; a plain sign that he did not think Origen 

u Vid. Origen. irtpl dp*, p. 62. ' (in Matt. p. 254), where the reason is 

edit. Bened. Cp. Huetii Origeniana, the same. See also Albertinus, p. 358. 

p. 46. Albertin. lib. ii. p. 357. z Vid. Origen. in Matt. pp. 391, 

* 'Dicit (Origen es)Spiritum Sane- 416; in Joann. pp. 124, 125. 

turn non operari in ea quae inanima a Kat ira\i'yyei>t(rias ovoij.a.^6fjifvov 

sunt, nee ad irrationabilia pervenire : Kovrpbv fj.fra avaKaiviaattas yiv6p.tvov 

quod adserens, non recogitat aquas TrvevpaTos, TOV Kal vvv 6iri(f>fpo^fvov, 

in Baptisinate mysticas adventu tirfiSri trtpl eoD fcrni/, firdvia TOV 

Sancti Spiritus consecrari.' Theoph. SSaros, a\\' ov /xera rJ> uSaip 

Alex. Lib. Paschal, i. p. 698 ; apud tyytvo/j.fvov. Ibid. p. 125. 

Hieronym. Opp. torn. iv. edit. Bened. Note, that the Latin version has 

y Vid. Origen. in Joann. p. 124. obscured the sense of the passage, 

edit. Huet. And compare what he not observing, perhaps, the allusion 

says of the eucharistical consecration, to Genesis. 

x. conferred in the Eucharist. 253 

to be guilty of the error charged upon him b . I rather think, 
that Chrysostom understood the popular way of expressing the 
illapse of the Spirit, in the same qualified sense that Origen 
before did ; and that was one reason why he would not come 
into the warm measures of Theophilus, Epiphanius, and other 
Eustathians c of that time, about the year 400. And whereas it 
is suggested by the same learned writer* 1 , that a solemn consecra- 
tion of things inanimate to holy uses, without supposing a formal 
illapse of the Spirit upon them, is a degrading account of a 
venerable mystery, and leaves no difference between the conse- 
cration of a church and the consecration of baptismal water, 
&c. ; I must take leave to reply, that the conclusion is not 
just : for in things so consecrated to holy uses, there will always 
be as much difference as there is between more and less sacred, 
according as the ends and uses are higher or lower, holier or less 
holy. The higher and holier the use is to which anything is 
consecrated by proper ministers, so much the more worthy it is, 
and so much the nearer and more important relation it bears to 
God and religion ; demanding thereupon so much the greater 
reverence and more awful regard. 

St. Cyprian (A.D, 255) speaks of a sacerdotal cleansing and 
sanctification of the baptismal water ; which he supposes to be 
wrought by the Holy Spirit 6 , and very frequently makes mention 
of it, up and down in his works. But he says nothing from 
whence one may certainly collect whether any formal prayer for 
the descent was then in use ; neither does he explain in what 
sense the Holy Ghost was understood to sanctify the baptismal 
waters. Only, as he intimates over and over, that the end and 
use of sanctifying the water was to convey spiritual graces to the 
persons coming to be baptized in it ; and as it is certain that 
those spiritual graces could not reside in or upon the outward 

b Johnson, Unbloody Sacrifice, c 'Oportet ergo mundari et sancti- 

parti, p. 181, alias 186. ficari aquam prius a sacerdote, ut 

c A short account of the odium possit Baptismo suo peccata hominis 

raised agiinst Origen may be seen in qui baptizatur abluere Quoinodo 

my Second Defence, vol. ii. p. 639, autemmundareet sanctificare aquam 

&c., and a larger in Huetius' Orige- potest, qui ipse immundus est, et 

niana. apud quern Spiritus Sanctus non est ?' 

d Johnson, ibid. p. 182, alias 185. Cyprian. Epist. Ixx. p. 190. 

254 Sanctifying Grace CHAP. 

element ; it is more than probable that he supposed the Spirit 
to rest where those spiritual effects rested, that is, upon the 
persons only : and then the sanctifying of the waters can mean 
no more than the consecrating them to the uses of personal 
sanctification. The Spirit made use of them as a symbol, for 
conveying his graces ; and in that use consisted their relative 
holiness : but the Spirit dwells not properly upon them, but 
upon the persons baptized. 

When we come down to the fourth century, there we find 
plainer evidences of formal prayers offered for the descent of the 
Holy Ghost upon the waters of Baptism. Cyril of Jerusalem 
(who wrote A.D. 348) speaks to his catechumens thus f : 'The 
Holy Ghost is coming to seal your souls : . . . . look not upon 
the laver as common water, but to the spiritual grace bestowed 
along with it.. ..This common water, upon receiving the in- 
vocation of the Holy Spirit, and of Christ, and of the Father, 
acquires a virtue of sanctification.' It may be doubted whether 
Cyril here refers to the prayer of Consecration or to the form 
of Baptism : but it appears most probable that he refers to the 
Consecration; as the Benedictine editor has endeavoured to prove 
at large, in his notes upon the place. What I have further to 
observe upon it is, that Cyril speaks of the water as receiving a 
sanctifying virtue. And what does he mean by it 1 He means 
what he had just before said, that the outward washing and 
the inward graces go together, and are both conferred at once 
upon the worthy receiver in the self-same act. The visible sign 
is connected, in certain effect, with the invisible grace; and both 
are applied, at the same instant, to the same man, jointly con- 
curring to the same end and use P. This is the foundation of the 
common way of speaking, as if the Spirit and the water were 
physically united with each other ; which is not strictly true in 
notion, but amounts to the same in moral effect. 

{ MAAei tb iri/eujua rb ayiov ffippa- iirlK\i)ffiv \affbv Swaaiv, 

yleu> vniav raj fyvxds. ..^ ws vSan iiriKrarai. Cyrill. Hierosol. Catech. 

Arr< irp6(Tfxf TV Aovrpy, a\\a rfj iii. sect. 3. pp. 40, 41. 

juera rov SSaros StSofjLfrri itvfv/MrtKy Vid. Vossius Harmon. Evangel. 

X<ipiri.. . . rb \trbr vSup wev/j.aros lib. iii. cap. 4. p. 233. Opp. torn. 

bylov, KJ Xpurrov, Kal irarpbs T)JV vi. 

x. conferred in the Eucharist. 255 

Optatus, an African Bishop, (A.D. 368,) alluding to the name 
l\6vs, (a technical name of our Lord,) says ; ' This fish (meaning 
Christ) is brought doAvn upon the waters of the font, in Baptism, 
by invocation 11 .' I presume this refers to the Consecration 
prayer i : and so it imports an expectance of, or petition for, the 
divine presence of Christ, to sanctify the person baptized in the 
use of the appointed service. 

St. Basil, of the same age, (A.D. 374,) speaks of the conjunc- 
tion of water and the Spirit in Baptism ; first observing, (in 
order to obviate mistakes or invidious constructions,) that the 
Church did not mean to prefer water before all other creatures ; 
much less to give it a share in the honours due to the Father 
and the Son k : but he takes notice, that the water serves to 
make out the symbol of a death unto sin, and the Spirit is 
the pledge or earnest of life 1 : therefore water and the Spirit go 
together in that Sacrament. Then he adds, that as to the grace 
supposed to be in the water, it belongs not properly to the water, 
but is entirely owing to the presence of the Spirit m . Presence 
how, and where ? To the water, or to the persons 1 His next im- 
mediate words will decide the question ; for he adds, in the lan- 
guage of St. Peter, that ' Baptism is not the putting away the 
filth of the flesh, but the stipulation of a good conscience towards 
God n .' The Spirit therefore, in his account, must rest upon 
the persons, to answer the end. He proceeds, soon after, to 
observe how much the Baptism of the Spirit is preferable to 
baptizing merely with water ; and he takes notice, that there is 
a Baptism, as valuable as any, wherein no water at all is needful, 
namely, Baptism in one's own blood, as a martyr for the name of 
Christ. Then he closes up the article he was upon in these 

h ' Hie est piscis qui in Baptismate, ffofiev. Basil, de Spir. Sanct. cap. 

per invocationem, fontalibus undis xv. p. 28. torn. iii. edit. Bened. 
inseritur,' &c. Optat. lib. iii. p. J Basil, ibid. p. 29. 
6 r . m "n<rTf ff TIS (trrlv iv rqi vfiari 

1 See Bingham, Christian Antiq. X^P IS > ^ K >/c T ^ s <pvaf<as tan rov 

b. xi. c. 10. sect. i. vol. iv. p. 167, vSaros, a\\' fK TTJS TOV KVfv/j.aros 

&C. Oxf. edit. Trapovaias. ov yap t<m rb &a.irTtcrfi.a, 

k Kal (Is vStap f}atrTi6(jLf0a, Kal pinrov ffapKos airdBfcris, aAAci ffvvftS'fi- 

ouJWprou rii vSwp irdffrjs 6fj.ov TTJJ ffftas ayaffrjs fls 9f6f, 

Kritrtuis irpoTifiiicro/jiev, i) Kal avrif Basil. Ibid. p. 29. 
TTJJ irarpbs Kal vlov TI/J.TJS /xra5(6- n i Pet. iii. 21. 

256 Sanctifying Grace CHAP. 

words : ' Not that I say this in order to disparage water- 
baptism, but to baffle the reasonings of those who rise up 
against the Spirit, and who would blend things together which 
are not blended, and compare things together which admit not 
of comparison .' 

I have laid these things together, as explanatory of what the 
ancient Fathers meant by joining the Spirit with the outward 
elements in the Sacraments, (for the reason is the same in both,) 
and as serving to clear up some of their other more dubious or 
less guarded expressions. Here, when an objection was raised by 
adversaries! 1 , grounded on nothing but words and names, this 
good Father then rejected with abhorrence any such mixture 
of the Spirit and the water as the Catholics were maliciously 
charged with : and he declared they were a/itwa, not mixed 
with each other. At the same time, he insinuated the true 
meaning of all to be, that the Spirit and the water so far went 
together Q, as to be applied at once to the same man, in the same 
service; but that the Spirit properly rested upon the person 
baptized, and not upon the outward element. Had the Romanists 
been as careful to distinguish in the matter of the Eucharist, as 
Basil here was with respect to Baptism, they would have seen 
no more reason for adoration of the Host, than Basil could find 
for adoration of water. He rejected the latter with the utmost 
disdain ; and so should they likewise have rejected the former. 
But I proceed. 

In the same treatise, the same excellent writer speaks of the 

Kal OVK o.QtTu>v rb iv r<p SSari argument, as much as the Spirit. It 

pd.KTi.ffna. TO.VTO. \tyw a\\a rovs wasinreplytosuchimpertinentcavils, 

\oyiirp.ovs KaPatptav TWV ^iraipofufvuv that Basil took occasion to explain 

Kara. TOV Trreu/xaroj, Ka.1 fjuyvvvruv what concerned the water and what 

TO. S/ziKTO, Kal irap(iKa6vT(av TO aow- the Spirit in that Sacrament, 

ei/coo-ra. Basil, p. 30. i This is clearly expressed by Na- 

P As the Catholics had argued zianzen of the same time : 

justly for the divinity of the Holy AITT}/ KO.I fj KaBapffis, Si* SSar6s 

Ghost, from our being baptized into rt tpr)(d, (cal irvtvfia.Tos, TOV / Occc- 

the Spirit, and sanctified by the Spirit, pijrus re KOI crco/uaTiKcSs \a.nf3avofjif- 

the Macedonians, on the other hand, vov, TOV 5e a.ffcafj.a.Tcas Ka.1 adecapTirus 

frowardly retorted, that we are bap- (nurpexoj'Tos. Nazianz. Orat. xl. in 

tized also tis SS<ap, in, or into water, Baptism, p, 641. Cp. Greg. Nyss. 

and sanctified by water ; and there- torn. ii. p. 8ci, de Bapt. Christi. 
fore water would be divine, by that 

x. conferred in the Eucharist. 257 

consecration, or benediction, that passes upon the waters of Bap- 
tism, analogous to that of the Eucharist, which he had spoken 
of a little before. *' We also bless,' says he, ' the water of 
Baptism, and the oil of Chrism, and the person likewise whom 
we baptize 1 ".' But yet he understood the difference (as may 
appear from what hath been before said) between the rela- 
tive holiness thereupon accruing to the water, or the oil, and 
the grace of the Spirit accruing to the person baptized. Having 
dwelt thus largely upon Basil, who may serve as a key to all 
the rest, I shall but touch upon others who came after, con- 
tenting myself with a bare recital of their testimonies, as needing 
no further comment. 

Gregory Nyssen, of the same time, (Basil's younger brother,) 
speaking of Baptism, says ; 'It is not the water that confers 
this benefit, (for then would it be superior to the whole crea- 
tion,) but it is the appointment of God, and the supervening of 
the Spirit, mystically advancing to our rescue : however, the 
water serves to signify the cleansing 8 .' A little after he ob- 
serves, that the Spirit invisible, being called by faith, comes in 
a manner ineffable, and blesses both the person and the water : 
and the water so blessed purifies and illuminates the man * : 
but if the man is not bettered, the water is mere water to him, 
destitute of the Spiint u . 

St. Ambrose (or whoever is the author) speaks of the descent 

r E,v\oyovfj.fV KOU r6 re vSwp rov 8 Tavrrjv 8e rfyv fvfpytffiav oil rb 

jSa-irTicr/uaTos, al rb t\aiov TJJI xp' l ~ vSdip xaf"'C 6Ta '- %" 7&p &i> iraffj\s rrjs 

crews, /cal irpofffn avrbv rbv /Sair- Krifftos v\^ri\6repov a\\a ecu irpoff- 

n6ptvop. Basil, de Sp. Sanct. cap. ray/jut, Kal f; TOV Trvtv/iiaros firi<potrT]- 

2 7- P- 55- ffls < f^vffrtKuis ffxofjitvr} irpbs T^V rjfie- 

' Cum veteres aiunt sanguinem rfpav t\fv6tpicu>. SScap Se virripfTfi 

Christi et Spiritum Sanctum se aquae irpbs ev$fiiv TTJJ KaOdpffeus. Greg. 

miscere, populare estloquendi genus; Nyss. in Baptism. Christi, p. 801. 

quoditacapere oportetquasidicerent, * nvcv/j.a rb a<pavfs, ir'taTti /coAor- 

quando aqua abluimur foris, oculis futvov, OPPTJTWJ Trapa.yiv6ti.fvov . . . fit- 

fidei intuendum esse sanguinem et Koytt rb @aim6/j.f>'oi', Kal rb iiSap 

spiritum Christi, qui a haec cum aqua rb /Sairrifo^. p. 801. iiSoip ev\oyov- 

coucurrunt, haud secus, ac si misce- /ifvov Ka6cupi /col <pwriei rlv &v- 

rentur cum aqua.' Voss. de Bapt. Bpcairov. p. 803. 

Disp. v. p. 274. Cp. de Saeram. u 'Eirl rovraiv rb vStap vSwp tarlv, 

Vi et Effiracia, pp. 252, 253. torn. ovSa/Mov rijs Sscpeas rov ayiov irvfv~ 

vi. fiaros tirupaveiffns, &c. p. 540. 

358 Sanctifying Grace CHAP/ 

of the Holy Ghost in Baptism * : and also of the presence of 
Christ upon the sacerdotal invocation Y. But it is remarkable, 
how in one place he distinguishes the descent of the Spirit upon 
the water from the descent upon the persons, and, as it were, 
corrects an inaccurate expression by one more proper 2 , intimating 
what the vulgar way of speaking really and strictly meant. In 
another treatise, he mentions the descent of the Holy Ghost in 
Baptism, after the sacerdotal invocation a : from whence it is 
manifest that some prayer was then used to be offered up for that 
purpose, imploring such descent. The book De Sacramentis 
is not justly ascribed to St. Ambrose : some think it may have 
been compiled not long after him, by some of his chief admirers b , 
others set it later. I shall only take notice of a custom then 
prevailing, of praying for the presence of the Son and Holy Ghost, 
in their Baptismal Offices ; or sometimes of the whole Trinity c . 
I shall descend no lower in this account, (since enough has 
been said,) except it be to present the reader with two or three 
forms of the invocation made in Baptism, beseeching God to 
send the Holy Spirit to sanctify the baptismal waters, or the per- 
sons to be baptized. We have not many of those forms remain- 
ing, in comparison of what we have with respect to the other 

* ' Illis angelus descendebat : tibi b See the Editor's preface fco that 
Spiritus Sanctus : illis creatura mo- work. Oudin brings it down to the 
vebatur, tibi Christus operatur, ipse eighth century, about 780. See 
Dominus creaturae.' Ambros. de Oudin, torn. i. p. 1858. Some attri- 
Myster. cap. iv. p. 330. edit. Bened. bute it to Maximus Taurinensis of 
' In hunc fontem vis divina descendit.' the fifth. Vid. Fabricius, Bibl. Med. 
p. 331 ; cp. 342. et Infim. Latin, lib. xii. p. 191. 

y 'Crede ergo adesse Dominum c 'Ubiprimumingreditursacerdos, 

Jesum, invocatum precibus sacerdo- exorcismum facit secundum creatu- 

tum.' p. 332. ram aquae ; invocatione postea et pre- 

1 ' Non utique dubitandum est, cem defert, ut sanctificetur fons, et 

quod (Spiritus) superveniens in fon- adsit praesentia Trinitatis aeternae.' 

tern, vel super eos qui Baptismum Pseud- Ambros. de Sacram. lib. i. cap. 

consequuntur, veritateni regenera- v. p. 353. 

tionis operetur.' Ambros. ibid. cap. 'Venit sacerdos, precem dicit ad 

ix. p. 342. fontem, invocat Patris nomen, prae- 

* ' Quid in hoc typo angelus, nisi sentiam Filii, et Spiritus Sancti.' 
descensionem Sancti Spiritus nuncia- Lib. ii. cap. 5. pp. 357, 358. 

bat, quae nostris futura temporibus, The reader may see more au- 

aquas sacerdotalibus invocata preci- thorities of like kind in Albertin. 

bus consecraret ? ' Ambros. de Sp. p. 465. 
Sanct. lib. i. cap. 7. p. 618. 

x. conferred in the Eucharist. 259 

Sacrament, less care having been taken to preserve or to collect 
them : but we have enough for our purpose. One of them 
occurs in the Constitutions; the oldest perhaps that is extant, 
though of uncertain date. It runs thus : ' Look down from 
heaven, and sanctify this water : give it grace and power, that he 
who is baptized therein, according to the command of thy Christ, 
may be crucified with him, and die with him, and be buried 
with him, and rise again with him to that adoption which comes 
by him ; that dying unto sin, he may live unto righteousness d .' 
Here indeed no express mention is made of the Holy Ghost the 
Sanctifier : but it is implied in the word ' sanctify,' and ' grace,' 
and 'power,' or 'virtue.' The blessing, we may note, is craved 
upon the water : but as no grace can properly rest there as in 
its subject, it is plain what all means, viz. that the persons should 
receive the grace of the Holy Ghost in the use of that water ac- 
cording to divine appointment ; or that the outward washing and 
the inward graces go together 6 . So, in common or customary 
speech, when any one prays that God may bless the means 
made use of for any person's recovery, nobody understands more 
in it than that God may bless the persons in the use of those 
means, and crown them with the success desired. We have 
another the like form in Pope Gregory's Sacramentarium : which 
however in its present state is not altogether so old as that 
Pope ; for the Sacramentary is not without interpolations f . The 

d KariSe ^| ovpavov, Kal ayiaffov TO nino saeculo Constitutiones quasdam 

vSup rovro' Sbs Se X C V" / K0 " 9tfafUf t Apostolicas innotuisse, quae postea 

Sxrre rbv, KO.T' eWoAV circa sextum saeculum ab homine 

rov Xpur-rov ffov, avrf crvffravptaBfj- quodam Ariano corruptae fuerint et 

vai, &c. Constitut. Apost. lib. vii. interpolatae.' Budd. Isagog. p. 747. 

cap. 43. p. 384. Cp. Turner, ch. xxiii. p. 237, &c. 

N. B. As to the age of the Con- Fabric. Bibl. Graec. torn. v. p. 33. 

stitutions 1 , Mr. Dodwell observes, torn. xi. pp. 7-10. 
that there is no evidence for them, c Accordingly, the person baptized 

(as we now have them in eight books,) is directed, immediately after to pray 

elder than the time of Dionysius for the descent of the Holy Ghost 

Exiguus, who was of the sixth cen- upon him. A6s /tot . . . irix vparos ayiov 

tury. See Dodwell of Incensing, p. eirj^on-Tjow trpbs K-rfifftv Kal irKtjpo- 

164. Ittigius and Buddaeus give the tpoplav TTJS oATjOei'as, Sia rov Xpicrrov 

like judgment. Others name the aov. Ibid. cap. xlv. p. 385. 
fifth century. * Qf the age of the Gregorian Sa- 

' Praef erenda mini reliquis videtur cramentary, see Dodwell of Incense, 

sententia Thomae Ittigii, quarto om- p. 218, &c. 

S 2 

2<5o Sanctifying Grace CHAP. 

form runs thus : ' Let the virtue of thy Spirit descend, Lord, 
upon the plenitude of this font, and impregnate all the substance 
of this water with a regenerating efficacy : here may the spots 
of all sins be washed off; here may that nature, formed after thy 
image, and now restored to its original purity, be cleansed from 
all its former stains ; that every one coming to this Sacrament 
of regeneration may be born again to a new infancy of true inno- 
cence &.' Hefe we may observe, that the petition is put up for 
the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the waters, as usual, for the 
benefit of the persons, that they may therein receive remission 
of sins, and all other spiritual graces, for restoring original 
righteousness lost by the fall of Adam, and for supporting and 
sustaining the Christian life. 

The Gothic Missal published by Mabillon h , bearing date as 
"high as the eighth century *, will furnish us with another form ; 
wherein the descent of the Holy Spirit is directly prayed for, to 
sanctify the baptismal waters, in order to derive pardon and grace 
upon the persons brought to the font k . I shall take notice of 
but one more, which occurs in the Gallican Sacramentary, of the 
latter end of the eighth century, or thereabout \ There also 
prayer is directly and in terms made, that God would send his 
Holy Spirit upon the water, in order to the purifying and rege- 
nerating the persons coming to Baptism m . 

8 ' Descendat, Domine, in bane super earn virtus tua : desuper in- 
plenitudinem fontis virtus Spiritus funde Spiritum tuum, sanctum Para- 
tui ; totamque hujus aquae substan- clitum, angelum veritatis. Sanctifica, 
tiam regenerandi foecundet effectu. Domine, hujus laticis undas, sicut 
Hie omnium peccatorum maculae sanctificasti fluenta Jordanis, ut qui 
deleantur, bic natura ad imaginem in hunc fontem descenderint, in no- 
Dei condita, et ad honorem sui re- mine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus 
formata principis, vetustatis cunctis Sancti, et peccatorum veniam, et 
squaloribus emundetur, omnis homo Sancti Spiritus infusionem consequi 
hoc Sacramentum regenerationis in- mereantur.' Missal. Goth. p. 248. 
gressus, in verae inuocentiae novam ' See Mabillon. Muse. Italic, torn, 
infant iain reuascatur.' Gregor. Mag. i. in Praefat. ad Sacram. G. p. 275. 
Lib. Sacram. p. 73. ed. Bened. Dodwell of Incense, p. 203, &c. 

h Mabillon de Liturgia Gallicana, m 'Te Deum Patrem omnipoten- 

p. 1 88, &c. tern deprecamur, ut hie Spiritum 

' See Mabillon. Praef. sect. is. Sanctum in aquam hanc supermictere 

And compare Dodwell of Incense, digneris, ut quoscunque baptizave- 

p. 190. rimus in nomine, &c., purificans et 

k ' Bsnedic, Domine Deus noster, regenerans accipias eos in numero 

hanc creaturam aquae, et descendat sanctorum tuorum, et consumines in 

x. conferred in the Eucharist. 261 

I hope my readers will not think much of the excursion which 
I have here made into the Sacrament of Baptism, with a view to 
illustrate what belongs to our present subject of the Eucharist. 
For indeed I know of no surer or shorter way of coming at a 
just and clear apprehension of what concerns one, than by com- 
paring together and duly weighing the circumstances of both. 
They are both of them equally Sacraments of the Christian 
Church, and have the like promise of the Holy Spirit, founded 
in the same merits of Christ's obedience and sufferings : there is 
the same reason for a consecration of the outward symbols in 
both, the same ground for expecting the presence of the Spirit ; 
the same warrant for asking it ; the same rule to go by in the 
doing it ; and the like primitive practice to countenance it. If 
we proceed upon favourable presumption, that what obtained 
universally, without order of councils, in the third or fourth cen- 
tury, (and of which there is no memorandum left when it began,) 
must be taken for apostolical, then the practice as to either 
Sacrament will bear the same date : but if we choose rather, 
apart from all conjectures, to set the practice in each no higher 
than we have certain evidences of it, from monuments now ex- 
tant, then we must date the practice with respect to Baptism no 
higher than the third, or however second century, when Tertul- 
lian flourished ; and with respect to the Eucharist, no higher 
perhaps than the fourth, as we shall see presently . 

I am aware, that several very worthy and learned men (and 
among the rest Dr. Grabe) have thought of an earlier date than 
I have just now mentioned ; and by their united labours and 
searches into that question, have enabled those that come after 
them to see the more clearly into it. Two very learned writers, 
(not to mention more now,) Mr. Pfaffius abroad, and Mr. John- 
son at home, have particularly traced that matter with all the 
diligence imaginable, and have both of them endeavoured to carry 
it up as high as there was any colour for carrying it. One of 

Spiritu tuo sancto in vitam aeternam, Pfaffius, p. 37^, &c. Bingham, xv. 

in saecula saeculorum.' Sacrament. 3, n. Collier, Keasons, &c. p. 21, 

Galilean, p. 124. &c. Deylingius, Observ. Miscell. 

n The testimonies of such invoca- p. 196, &c. 344, &c. 
tion in the Eucharist are collected by 

262 Sanctifying Grace CHAP. 

them appeals even to Ignatius, as a voucher for the practice , 
because he makes mention of some heretics who ' abstained from 
the Eucharist and prayer, as not acknowledging the Eucharist 
to be the flesh of Christ Jesus P.' But I cannot see how, by any 
ever so distant consequence, we can thence fairly conclude, that 
it was the practice of that time to pray for the descent of the 
Holy Ghost in the Eucharist : for if the words of the institution 
were but used in the prayer of Consecration in those days, that 
alone is sufficient to account for all that Ignatius says there, 
or anywhere else. 

Mr. Pfaffius, more plausibly, endeavours to run up the practice 
as high as Irenaeus of the second century. And, indeed, could 
he have sufficiently warranted the genuineness of those fragments 
which he has obliged the learned world with, under the name of 
Ii'enaeus, there could have been no room left for further dispute 
on that head 1. But he has not done it ; neither is it, I believe, 
possible to be done r . As to his argument drawn from the use 
of the word fKK\r}<ns, or eVtVXqo-ts, invocation of God, in Irenaeus's 
certainly genuine works 8 , it is too precarious a topic to build a 
thing of this moment upon ; because there may be an invocation 
of God in prayer, without any praying for the descent of the 
Holy Spirit ; and eWKXijo-tj is nothing but a common name for 
any kind of invocation in prayer ; as when the three Persons are 
named or invoked in the form of Baptism, (for so Origen uses 
it r ,) or are otherwise named in the Eucharist ; as they certainly 
were by Justin Martyr's account u . No proof therefore hath been 
yet given of the practice of praying for the descent of the Holy 
Ghost, in the eucharistical service, so early as Irenaeus's days. 

Mr. Pfaffius endeavours next w to make it at least as ancient as 
the third century ; because the Dialogue against the Marcionites, 

Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, Cassiodori Complex, pp. 240, 241. 
part i. p. 241, alias 245 ; part ii. p. Iren. pp. 60, 251. edit. Bened. 
j8o. Compare Collier, Reasons, &c. Cp. Pfaffius, p. 96, &c. 

p. 22. Defence, p. 101, &c. Vindi- * Origen. in Joann. p. 124, et 

cation, p. 109, &c. 128, &c. apud Basil, de Spir. Sanct. cap. 29. 

P Ignat. Ep. adSmyrn. cap.vii.p. 4. u Justin. Martyr. Apol. i. p. 96. 

1 Vid. Fragmenta Irenaei ap. Pfaff. Cp. Cyrill. Hieros. Mystag. i. sect, 
p. 27; cp. p. 94, &c. vii. p. 308. 

r Vid. Scipio Maffeius in Notis ad w Pfaffius in Praefat. 

x. conferred in the Eucharist. 263 

commonly ascribed to Crigen, or else to Maximus of the same 
age, makes mention of the Holy Spirit's coming upon the Eu- 
charist^ But besides that there is no mention of any prayer 
for such descent, (so that the evidence here comes not up to the 
point in question,) I say, besides that, the author of that Dia- 
logue, most certainly, was neither Origen, nor Maximus, nor any 
of that age, but probably another Adamantius, who lived in the 
fourth century, in the time of Constantine ; as the learned 
editor in his new edition of Origen has observed at large y. At 
last then, we must be content to come down as low as the fourth 
century, and indeed towards the middle of it, (when the elder 
Cyril wrote,) for clear and undoubted evidence of the practice of 
praying for the illapse of the Spirit upon the symbols in the 
holy Communion. No doubt but it was used in the Church of 
Jerusalem before, for Cyril did not invent it, nor first use it : but 
how long before, is the question ; which, for want of higher 
records, we cannot now certainly determine. Cyril intimates 
part of the very form of the invocation then in use ; and it may 
be worth the setting down here for the reader's perusal. 'We 
beseech the all-merciful God to send the Holy Ghost upon the 
elements, that he may make the bread Christ's body, and the 
wine Christ's blood. For whatsoever the Holy Ghost once 
touches, that most certainly must be sanctified and changed z .' 
That is, as to its uses or offices. Some time after, the Priest 
says ; ' Holy are the elements which lie before us, having re- 
ceived the illapse of the Holy Spirit : holy also are ye, being 
now endowed with the Holy Spirit a .' This was said before 
the receiving ; which I note, for the sake of some inferences 
to be made from it : i. That the elements are not here made 
the conduit of the Holy Spirit, (for the Spirit is supposed to be 

x Tb aytov iri/eDjua eiri TTJS tvx&pi- cfip.a Xpi<nov - iravrtas 

ffr(as epxercu. Adamantius Dialog, ^turo rb ayiov irvtvfj.a, TOVTO fiytcurrat 

sect. ii. p. 826. edit. Bened. /cat jueTa/3e)3A7?Ta{. Cyrill. Mystag. v. 

y Delarue in Admonitione praevia, cap. 7. p. 327. Cp. Albertin. 320. 
p. 800, &c. a "Ayta Tct Trpo/cei'/*e o, firi<poiTr](nv 

z HapaKaXov/jLev rbv <pi\di>0p(airoi' Sffa/uepo ayiov irpfUjUOTOS' aytoi KOU 

@fbv, T& ayiov irreC/ua aTro<TT?Ao< fyutTy iri/eu/ttoros aylov Ka.Taui>6ft>Tfs. 

tTTi TO irpoKti/j.fva' Iva. iroi4]crri rbv Ta a-yia o$v TO?S ayiois Ka.rd\\r)\a. 

juep &prov oriufta. XpiffTov, rbp St olvov Ibid. c. xix. p. 33 1 - 

364 Sanctifying Grace CHAP. 

received by the communicants before them and without them,) 
but the service of the Eucharist is the conduit rather, if either 
of them properly be so. 2. That the meaning of the prayer for 
the illapse of the Spirit is, to invite the Spirit to come down 
upon the communicants immediately, or principally, to make 
them holy in a sense proper to them, as well as to make the ele- 
ments holy in a sense proper to things inanimate: therefore 
Cyril adds, ' holy things' then are meet for holy men.' Hence 
also came that ancient eucharistical form of ' sancta sanctis,' holy 
things for holy men b , made use of previously to the reception of 
the sacred symbols. 3. Though the elements are sanctified by 
the Holy Ghost, and thereupon become relatively holy, as being 
now sacred symbols and representatives of our Lord's body and 
blood, yet they are not beneficial to unholy persons, but hurtful, 
and therefore are not to them the body and blood of Christ in 
real grace, virtue, energy, or effect. 4. Since the persons are 
supposed to become holy by the presence of the Holy Spirit, pre- 
viously to receiving, in order to reap benefit from it, it is plain 
that, as to the request for making the elements Christ's body and 
blood, the meaning only is, that they may be so made, not in 
themselves, but to the communicants c , considered as holy : for, 

* A full account of it may be seen to -become the body and blood of 
in Menardus's Notes upon the Grego- Christ to them that communicate, 
rian Sacramentary, p. 566. ToutteVs that true sense is so well signified 
Notes on Cyril, p. 331. And Bing- and expressed, that the words can- 
ham's Eccles. Antiq. book xv. ch. 3. not well be understood otherwise 
sect. 31. vol. v. p. 344. Oxf. edit. than to import, not the corporal 

c So in the Canon of the Mass, and substance, but the spiritual iise of 

in our Communion Service of King them.' Thorndike, Relig. Assemb. 

Edward's Prayer-Book of the first p. 369. 

edition, the words run, 'That they 'In the book of the holy Commu- 

may become to us the body and nion we do not pray absolutely, that 

blood of Christ.' Of which Mr. the bread and wine may be made 

Thorndike very judiciously com- the body and blood of Christ, but 

ments, as here follows : that unto us, in that holy mystery, 

' These words " to us," make an they may be so : that is to say, that 

abatement in the proper signification we may so worthily receive the 

of the body and blood. For the same, that we may be partakers of 

elements may be said to become the Christ's body and blood, and that 

body and blood of Christ without therewith in spirit and in truth we 

addition, in the same true sense in may be spiritually nourished." Arch- 

which they are so called in the bishop Cranmer against Gardiner, 

Scriptures: but when they are said p. 79. edit. 1580. 

x. conferred in the Eucharist. 265 

were the elements absolutely Christ's body and blood, they would 
be so both to the holy and unholy, which they are not. Indeed 
both good and bad do receive the consecrated signs, but those 
only who are worthy do receive the things signified. 

The next oldest form we meet with, after Cyril's, may be that 
of the Constitutions, falsely called Apostolical : ' We beseech 
thee, God, thou that art above the need of anything, to look 
graciously down upon these gifts here lying before thee, and to 
accept them favourably for the honour of thy Christ, and to 
send thy Holy Spirit upon this sacrifice, the witness of the 
sufferings of the Lord Jesus ; that he may make this bread 
become the body of thy Christ, and this cup become the blood 
of thy Christ ; that they who partake thereof may be confirmed 
in godliness, may obtain remission of sins, may be delivered 
from the devil and his impostures, may be filled with the Holy 
Ghost,' &c. d I need not go on to later forms of like kind, 
many of which are to be met with in the large Collections of 
Liturgies, published by Fabricius, Goar, Renaudot, Mabillon, 
and others. The English reader may find a competent number 
of the same in a Collection translated by several hands, and 
published by the Reverend Dr. Brett, with several very learned 
and curious Dissertations upon them, worth the considering^. 
All I need do here is to make some general remarks, proper to 
give light to the true and full meaning of those liturgic forms, 
with respect to the descent or illapse of the Spirit, either upon 
the communicants or upon the symbols. 

i . It is observable, that the naked symbols, before the Spirit 
is supposed to approach, or to make them Christ's body and 
blood, are offered up as gifts, and called a sacrifice. I inquire 
not now in what sense, designing a distinct chapter for that 

A 'Aioi)fj.ft> ffe oncas vntvcas firi- itOTi)piov TOVTO aljtta TOV XptirTov ffov, 

fi\tyris lif\ TO VpMf/fMfa 8%>a TO.VTO. 'iva ol /j.fra\al36vTes UVTOV /3e/3cutii0<a(ri 

tvdffiAv ffov, av & avfvtitTjs tbs, KCU irpbs fvoffifiav, atyffftws a^aprijjueiTcov 

fiiSomjcn?* (if aiiTols els TI/JL^V TOV TVXOXTI, TOV AiaJ&Aov KO.\ TTJS ir\dvris 

XpLffrov ffov, leal Ka.Tairt/j.fyr]s rb ayi6v avrov pvarOaiffi, Trvfv/j.a.Tos ay'wv irATj- 

ffov Trvtv/J.a firl T)JV Ovffiav TavnjVj T}>V paBwfftv. K. T. \. Const. Apost. lib. 

/j.dprvpa Tiav ira6r)iJ.d.T(ov TOV Kvpiov viii. cap. 12. p. 407. 
'Ir/ffow, Sircos o-7ro(j>Vj7 T'OV &pToi> TOV- e Brett's Collection of the principal 

TOV (Tai^a TOV Xpiarov ffov, KOI TO Liturgies^ printed A. D. 1720. 

a66 Sanctifying Grace CHAP. 

purpose below : but such is the common form and tenor of 
most of the other Liturgies, Greek ones especially; St. James's f , 
St. Mark's , St. Basil's h , and St. Gregory's ', as they are called. 

2. Next it is observable, from the old Liturgies, that after the 
oblation and sacrifice, and after the illapse of the Spirit upon the 
symbols, to make them authentic and effective representatives of 
our Lord's body and blood, another very solemn prayer was wont 
to be put up, pleading to God the merits of Christ's passion, and 
beseeching him, for the sake thereof, to be propitious towards 
the communicants in particular, and towards the Church in 
general. Cyril represents that part of the service thus : ' After 
the finishing the spiritual sacrifice, the unbloody service ; over 
that sacrifice of propitiation, we beseech God in behalf of the 
common peace of the churches ... we offer Christ slain for our 
sins, entreating the all-merciful God to be propitious to ourselves 
and others V There is such another form of prayer in the 
Constitutions 1 : it follows the oblation, and may itself be called, 
and often has been called, another oblation. But the proper 
name for it is Commemoration of the passion, now made before 
God, pleading the merit of the same, in order to obtain the fruits 
and benefits of it. This part of the service was very ancient, 
and most undoubtedly did obtain, in some shape or other, even 
from the beginning ; pursuant to our Lord's command, to make 
commemoration of him, and to St. Paul's account of the Eu- 
charist, as shewing the Lord's death till his coming again. Such 
memorial of the passion is more than once mentioned by Justin 
Martyr, and Origen, and Cyprian, and Eusebius, and Chrysostom, 
and many more. The meaning of the petition which went 

f Jacobi Liturg. apud Fabric, pp. KOIVTJS rHav fKKK^atSsv tlpr)i>ris . . . Xpi- 

66. 68, 70, 82, 96. ffrbv ^fftyayicrfievov vittp ruv f)(j.tTfpti>v 

s Marci Liturg. apud Fabric, pp. o^iopTTj/xaTou' irpoatytponei', ti\fov- 

275, 278, 286, 287. fj-fvoi inrfp avrHov re Kal fi(j.cav (pi\aj/- 

h Basil. Liturg. in Renaudot. pp. Bpiairov t:6i>. Cyrill. Mystag. v. pp. 

57,6i,68. 3^7.3^8. 

' Gregorii Liturg. apud Renaudot. ' Constitut. Apostol. lib. viii. cap. 

pp. 90, 94, 95, 105. 13. pp. 408, 409. 

k Elra, fj.fTa. rb airapTicrBrjrai T^V m See above, oh. i. pp. 21, 32, 

irvfvfj.ariK^v 6v<riai>, r^v avai^aKTov under the name Oblation and Me- 

AorpefoJ', tirl TTJS 6vfftas tKflvTjs rov morial. 
rbf Qtbv v*fp 

x. conferred in the Eucharist. 267 

along with it was, that our blessed Saviour, who is our intercessor 
and advocate above, might vouchsafe to make those prayers 
acceptable at the throne of grace, pleading the interest of his 
all-prevailing sacrifice in heaven". The Liturgy in Ambrose 
has the like memorial with the former, after the consecration : 
and so has the Gallican SacramentaryP. The Greek and Oriental 
Liturgies have commonly the same, but not always in the same 
order ; sometimes placing the memorial, or annunciation, im- 
properly, before the consecration <J, and again, more properly, 
after r : which is an argument of the lateness of those Litm-gies, 
as we now have them, and of the confused state wherein most 
of them are. 

3. But the most material point of all is to fix the true mean- 
ing of the invocation and illapse of the Spirit, into which the 
Greeks commonly resolve the consecration. The Romish Divines 
have frequently laid hold of what is said concerning the illapse 
of the Spirit, as favourable to their tenet of transubstantiation ; 
because the Holy Ghost is said to make the bread the body, and 
the wine the blood of Christ. But when it came to be observed, 
that the Greeks constantly used that prayer of invocation, for 
the descent of the Spirit, after the words of the institution, 
(in which the Romanists fix the consecration,) a great difficulty 
arose, how to reconcile Greeks and Latins, upon the article of 
consecration : for the former placed it in the descent of the 
Holy Spirit, and the latter in the words of institution. A solu- 
tion at length was thought on, namely, that the descent or illapse 
of the Holy Ghost, spoken of in the Greek Liturgies, should not 
be understood to make the symbols Christ's body, &c. (being 
made such before in consecration, by the words, ' This is my 
body,' &c.), but to make the reception of the body and blood 
beneficial and salutary to the communicants. Many of the 
learned Latins, at the Council of Florence, and after, embraced 

n 'Offert se ipse quasi sacerdos, Pseudo-Ambrosias de Sacrament. 

ut peccata nostra dimitt-tt : hie in lib. iv. cap. 6. 

imagine, ibi in veritate, ubi apud P Sacramentar. Gallican. p. 280. 
Patrem pro nobis quasi advocatus q Jacob. Liturg. ap. Fabric, p. 

intervenit.' Ambrosias de Offic. 82. Basil. Liturg. pp. 6r. 68. 
lib. i. cap. 48. r Jacob. Liturg. p 96. 

268 Sanctifying Grace CHAP. 

the solution with some eagerness. Bessarion also then, and 
Arcudius afterwards, (two Latinized Greeks,) set themselves to 
defend it, and did it with good learning and judgment 8 . It 
appears to be true, that they justly interpreted the intent and 
meaning of that invocation, by the beneficial effect of the illapse 
of the Spirit upon the communicants in the use of the symbols, 
and not by the Spirit's making the symbols absolutely the body 
and blood : and we are so far obliged to them, for pleading 
unawares on the Protestant side, and thereby giving up the most 
plausible colours which all antiquity could afford for the novel 
doctrine of transubstantiation f . 

It must however be owned, that the later and shrewder Ro- 
manists, observing how their friends were caught in their own 
snare, have been very solicitous to retract that occasional con- 
cession, and to condemn Bessarion, Arcudius, and others, for 
giving into it. Lequien is one of those who endeavour to recall 
the grant u ; and Renaudot is another x ; and Toutte'e a third y. 
They are justly sensible, how their most specious pretences from 
the ancients are at once taken from them, and that the Pro- 
testant cause is now triumphant, in that article, even upon their 
own concessions. Their perceiving it with such concern does not 
at all abate the force of what Bessarion, and Arcudius, and 
many more of their friends very learnedly and justly pleaded for 
the original meaning of that form. All circumstances shew, that 
the true and ancient intent of that part of the service was not to 
implore any physical change in the elements, no, nor so much as 
a physical connection of the Spirit with the elements, but a moral 

8 See particularly Arcudius de sima est Protestantium doctrina. . . . 

Concord. Eccles. Occident, et Orient. Si haec ad solam fructuosam commu- 

1. iii. cap. 33. p. 287, &c. nionera referantur, nulla niagis coin- 

* See Dr. Covel's Account of the moda Protestantium causae interpre- 
Gr. Church, p. 54, &c. tatio excogitari poterat. Renaudot. 

u Lequien in Notis ad Damascen. Liturg. Orient, torn. ii. p. 93. 
torn. i. p. 269. v ' Verba haec detorquere ad ef- 

* ' Quod aiunt Bessarionis et Arcu- fectus Eucharistiae in nobis postu- 
dii imitatores totam orationera referri landos, ecclesiam luculentissimo, an- 
ad fructuosam mysterii susceptionem, tiquissimo, et constantissimo tran- 
ferri non potest. . . . Unde sequeretur substantiations testimonio privare 
nullam esse transmutationem erga in- est.' Toiitte"e Cyrillian. Dissertat. 
dignecommunicantes, quaegermanis- iii. p. 238. 

x. conferred in the Eucharist. 269 

change only in the elements, as to relations and uses, and a gra- 
cious presence of the Holy Spirit upon the communicants z . 

One argument of it may be drawn from the style of the 
prayer, 'super nos, et super haec dona a ,' begging the descent upon 
the communicants fh'st, and then upon the elements ; that is to 
say, upon the communicants in the use of those now holy or con- 
secrated symbols. Renaudot would persuade us, that the ' super 
nos' relates to the consecrators, or to the officiating clergy b . But 
what I have before cited from St. Cyril, as understanding the 
descent of the Spirit to be upon the communicants in general, is 
a sufficient confutation of every such surmise. 

Another argument of what I am here pleading for may be 
drawn from the restriction to us, inserted in that form, in several 
Liturgies ; particularly in the Gregorian Sacramentary c , and 
from thence derived to the Canon of the Mass. I have shewn 
the meaning of it before, and need not here repeat. 

But the clearest and strongest argument of all may be drawn 
from the like form of invocation in the Baptismal Offices ; where 
it is certain that it could mean only a moral change of the water 
as to use and office, not a physical change of its substance. Why 
should the illapse of the Holy Spirit be supposed to work any 
greater, or any other change in the elements of the Eucharist, 
than in the waters of Baptism d 1 

Renaudot, being aware of this difficulty, offers a kind of salvo 
for it ; namely, that though the Spirit is invited to come down 
upon the waters in Baptism, yet he comes not to change the 
waters into Christ's body and blood, but to give regeneration and 
remission to the persons. He observes likewise, that when the 
Spirit is invoked upon the oil, or chrism, or persons to be 

z Vid. Fulgent, ad Monim. lib. ii. omnibus quaesumns benedictam . . . 

cap. 9, 10. facere digneris, ut nobis corpus et 

" See the Liturgies in Fabricius, sanguis fiat,' &c. 

68, 84, 85, 98, 204, 205, 243, 298, d Compare what Mr. Pfaffius has 

300 ; or in lienaudotius, torn. i. pp. well urged on this head, p. 76, &c. 

16, 31, 46, 48, 68, 105 ; torn. ii. pp. Though it must be said, that his own 

118, 143, 313, 325. hypothesis will no more clear this 

b Renaudot. Liturg. Orient, torn, article, than the Popish one can ; for 

i. p. 340. the invocation in Baptism draws 

c 'Quam oblationem tu, Deus, in down nothing but what is spiritual. 

270 Sanctifying Grace CHAP. 

ordained, or whatever else is to be consecrated, it amounts only to 
a petition for the grace of the Spirit upon the parties concerned ; 
which is quite another thing from changing the symbols in the 
Eucharist into the body and blood 6 . But this appears to be 
begging the question, or rather to be giving up the main thing : 
for what we assert is, that the ancients supposed the like illapse 
of the Spirit, and like change wrought in the waters of Baptism, 
and in the oil, and chrism, &c., as in the elements of the Eucha- 
rist ; and therefore if in those it amounted only to a moral or 
spiritual change, it cannot, upon their principles, amount to more 
in this. Cyril of Jerusalem, as before quoted, plainly makes 
those several cases so far parallel f ; and so does Gregory Nys- 
sen s after him : therefore Mr. Renaudot's concessions turn upon 
himself, and recoil upon his own hypothesis. It is not indeed 
said, that the Holy Ghost in Baptism converts the water into 
body and blood ; neither is it said, that the Holy Ghost in the 
Eucharist converts the symbols into water of life, or into a 
celestial garment ; each Sacrament has its distinguishing style 
and title, proper to the symbols of it, and to the resemblance 
intended in it. For though they exhibit the same graces, yet 
they do it not under the same types, figures, or symbols : and that 

e ' Invocatur quoque ut mittat pare Bingham, book si. ch. x. sect. 4. 
Spiritual Sanctum super aquas bap- s Gregor. Nyssen. de Baptismo 

tismales, ut in illis baptizati accipiant Christi, torn. ii. pp. 801, 802. edit, 

regenerationem, omniumque pecca- Paris. 1615. Dr. Covel has observed 

torum remissionem : super oleum, et the same at large, with respect to 

chrisma, ut gratiam baptizatis novam the later rituals, in his Account of 

conferant : super ordinandos, ut ac- the Greek Church, p. 33, &c. And 

cipiant sanctimoniam et potestatem though he intended the instances 

ad sacra ministeria sancte exercenda : there given only to shew, that such 

super oleum infirmorum, ut ejus forms implied no physical change in 

unctio prosit infirmis ad salutem ani- the things so consecrated, yet they 

mae et corporis. . . . Verum in Eu- really prove more, viz. that the Holy 

charistia consecranda, aliud quiddam Spirit was supposed to rest upon the 

se petere designant, nempe illapsum persons in the use of the symbols, 

efficacem Spiritus Sancti in dona and not upon the symbols themselves, 

proposita, ut mutentur et trans- in strictness of speech. I may note 

ferantur in corpus et sanguinem also, that in pp. 56, 57, he has fully 

Domini : quod de aqua, chrismate, confuted the most specious pretence 

oleoque, aliisque Sacramentis, nun- which the Romanists commonly make 

quam postulasse orientales repe- from some corrupt copies of Basil's 

riuntur.' Renaudot. torn. i. pp. Liturgy, by producing a truer read- 

196. 197. ing out of a different copy, near six 

f See above, ch. vii. p. 159. Com- hundred years old. 

x. conferred in the Eucharist. 271 

is the sole reason of the different style here and there. There is 
the same change wrought in both, and by the same Divine power, 
and to the same salutary purposes. There is the same kind of 
prayer in both, for the same kind of illapse or presence of the 
Spirit, and for the same kind of grace, virtue, and efficacy, 
whether upon the symbols or recipients. If we feed upon Christ 
in the Eucharist, we put him on in Baptism, which comes to the 
same thing in the main. If we are partakers of the spiritual 
lamb there, so are we also here. If we drink his blood there, we 
are clipped in his blood here, which is tantamount. Nay, we are 
partakers of the body and blood in both, according to the prin- 
ciples of the ancient writers. Testimonies to that effect have 
often been collected by learned Protestants : and therefore, for 
the avoiding of prolixity, I choose rather to refer h , than to 
repeat. Such being the certain doctrine of the ancients, it is a 
vain attempt, to strain any expressions of theirs concerning the 
illapse of the Spirit in the Eucharist, beyond what they admitted 
in the other Sacrament. The substance of what they taught is 
the same with respect to both, only in different phrases, as the 
difference of the symbols required : for Baptism is not the Eu- 
charist, though it exhibits the same graces, and does the same 
thing, and by the same powers, that the Eucharist does. 

From the account here given, I may take notice, by the way, 
of the wisdom of our first Reformers, who, while they thought of 
inserting any prayer at all for the illapse of the Spirit, resolved 
to do it equally and indifferently in both the Offices ; as well in 
the Office of Baptism ', as in the Office for the Communion k : 

h Bishop Moreton on the Sacra- tion of thy holy name. Sanctify this 

ment, p. 568, &c. Albertinus, pp. fountain of Baptism,' &c. 

223, 426. Bin gham, book xi. chap. k 'Hear us, O merciful Father, 

1 6. sect. 4. we beseech thee, and with thy Holy 

i In King Edward's first Prayer- Spirit and Word, vouchsafe to bless 

Book, A. D. 1549. ' most merciful and sanctify these thy gifts, and 

God our Saviour Jesu Christ . . . creatures of bread and wine, that 

upon whom, being baptized in the they may be unto us the body and 

river of Jordan, the Holy Ghost blood of thy most dearly beloved 

came down in the likeness of a dove, Son Jesus Christ.' 

send down, we beseech thee, the N. B. If it should be asked, how 

same thy Holy Spirit, to assist us, they are so unto us, if they be not 

and to be present at this our invoca- first absolutely so 1 Answ. They are 

27 2 Sanctifying Grace CIIA.P. 

for there is, undoubtedly, as much reason and as great autho- 
rity for it with respect to the former, as there is with respect to 
the latter. Indeed they were both thrown out afterwards, upon 
prudential considerations, and at the instance chiefly of two 
learned and judicious foreigners, whom Archbishop Cranmer 
called in to assist at the review of our Litui-gy in 1551 1. It 
was thought, perhaps, as there was no express Scripture precept, 
nor any clear proof of apostolical practice, either for this form or 
another, that therefore every church was at liberty in such cases. 
It might be considered further, that several centuries probably 
had passed, before there were any public written Liturgies at all : 
and the Bishops commonly, in and for their respective churches, 
had been left to draw up such forms as they judged most proper 
to times and circumstances, conformable to the analogy of faith m . 
And since an ill use had often been made, by Eomanists, of those 
words of the Communion Office, in favour of transubstantiation n , 
(for which there appeared some colour, though colour only, and 
owing to misconstruction and wrong iufei*ences,) prudence might 
require some alteration, under such circumstances. However, 
in our present Offices, we have some remains of the ancient way 
of praying for the assistance of the Holy Spirit in both Sacra- 
ments. In our Office of Public Baptism, we have the invocation 
couched under general expressions : the people are admonished 
to call upon God the Father, that the child brought to the 
font may be baptized with water ' and the Holy Ghost.' Then 
again, ' sanctify him with the Holy Ghost,' and ' give thy 
Holy Spirit to this infant : ' and as to the outward element, 
' sanctify this water to the mystical washing away of sin.' These 
passages, penned in a more reserved, general way, do yet 
really contain all that the more ancient invocation in Baptism 
amounted to. 

said to be so unto us, when the bene- m See Bingham, book i. chap. 19. 

ficial effect goes along with them. sect. 17 ; book xiii. chap. 5. sect. I ; 

See Cranmer and Thorndike, cited book ii. chap. 6. sect. 2. lienaudot, 

above, p. 264. torn. i. p. 9. 

1 See Wheatly on the Common- n See Cranmer, p. 325. Dr. Aid- 
Prayer, p. 26. Collitr, Vindic. of rich, Reply to two Oxford Discourses, 
Keas. and Def. p. 150. pp. 8, 9. 

x. conferred in the Eucharist. 273 

In our Communion Service, the invocation is more obscurely 
intimated under a few, and those general terms : ' Grant that 
we receiving these thy creatures of bread and wine . . . may be 
partakers of his most precious body and blood .' This was part 
of the ancient invocation ; and it expresses the thing formerly 
prayed for, without specifying the particular manner, or means, 
viz. the immediate operation of the Holy Spirit : though that also 
must of course be understood and implied, upon Christian prin- 
ciples taught' in Scripture. After all, I see no reason why it may 
not be justly thought as modest, and as reverent, to beg of God 
the Father the things which we want, understanding that he will 
grant them by his Holy Spirit, as to make a formal petition to 
him, to send his Holy Spirit upon the elements or upon the 
communicants ; unless Scripture had particularly ordered some 
such special form, to be made use of in our sacramental solem- 
nities, which it has not done P. 

It must be owned, that there was something very affecting 
and awful in many of the ancient forms, apt to strike the minds 
of an assembly, and to raise their devout affections, when pro- 
perly executed with a becoming dignity, by grave and venerable 
men. Such was that prefatory part in several old Liturgies, 
' How dreadful is this season,' &c., made use of just before the 
expected coming of the Holy Spirit, in order to prepare every 
humble communicant to wait for it with the most pi'ofound 
reverence and most exalted devotions. But it may be doubted, 
whether such forms are proper at all times and in all circum- 
stances ; and whether they might not, in some circumstances, 
rather obstruct than further the good ends designed by them. 
The more general and reserved method is certainly the less 

That is, partakers of the merits tamen in genuinis Apostolorum scrip- 

and virtue of the body as crucified, tis ne ypv.' Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. 

and blood as spilled ; and partakers Nov. Test. part. iii. in praefatione. 
also of the same body considered as ' Nos equidem illam Spiritus Sancti 

raised again, and mystically united firi<poirj](jiv neque ad symbolorum 

with worthy receivers. consecrationem necessariam, nee exo- 

P ' Mirum in hisce, aliisque Orien- randam, nee Graecorum Liturgiam 

talium. Liturgiis, consensum videas ea in parte defendendam, aut imi- 

circa invocationem Spiritus Sancti, taridamesse arbitramur.' Deylingius, 

ut dona faciat corpus et sanguinem Observ. Miscellan. p. 159. 
Christi : de hac liturgica invocatione 

274 Sanctifying Grace CHAP. 

affecting ; but yet it may be, all things considered, the surest way 
to keep up the dignity of the Sacraments among the generality, 
and to secure the sacred Offices from contempt. But I have 
said enough of this matter, which came in only by the way. 

While I am speaking of our excellent Liturgy, it may not be 
amiss to take notice of another article relating to this head, 
wherein it may appear to some short and defective. It is very 
certain, that the commemoration, memorial, or annunciation of 
our Lord's passion, with an address to God for his propitious 
favour thereupon, has been a very ancient, eminent, and solemn 
part of the Communion Service. There is now no direct formal 
application of that kind in our Offices. There was in King 
Edward's Liturgy of 1549, in these words: 'We thy humble 
servants do celebrate and make here before thy Divine Majesty 
with these thy holy gifts, the memorial which thy Son has willed 
us to make, having in remembrance his blessed passion, mighty 
resurrection,' &c. Why this part was struck out in the review, 
I know not ; unless it was owing to some scruple (which how- 
ever was needless) about making the memorial before God, which 
at that time might appear to give some umbrage to the Popish 
sacrifice, among such as knew not how to distinguish. However 
that were, we have still the sum and substance of the primitive 
memorial remaining in our present Offices ; not all in a place, 
but interspersed here and there in the exhoiiations and prayers. 
In a previous exhortation, we read ; ' Above all things ye must 
give most humble and hearty thanks to God the Father, &c. for 
the redemption of the world by the death and passion of our 
Saviour Christ both God and man,' &c. There is the sense and 
signification of the ancient memorial, only under a different form. 
In the Post-Communion, we beseech God 'to accept our sacrifice 
of praise and thanksgiving, and to grant remission of sins to us 
and to the whole Church, by the merits and death of Christ Jesus.' 
Which words contain the substance of what was anciently the 
appendage to the memorial. There was besides, in most of the 
old Liturgies % a particular petition added, that the angels might 

i See in Fabricius's Collection, 265, 273, and in Renaudot's passim, 
pp. 36, 54, 70, 96, 147, 173, 206, 234, Compare Apostol. Constit. lib. viii. 

X. conferred in the Eucharist. 2,J$ 

carry up our prayers to the high altar in heaven ; and this also 
was inserted in King Edward's first Liturgy, but struck out at 
the first review. As to the altar in heaven, I shall have occasion 
to say more in a chapter below, and therefore pass it over here. 
As to the notion of angels conveying the prayers of the suppli- 
cants to the throne above, I know not whether it had any better 
grounds than the authority of the apocryphal book of Tobit r , as 
Bucer observed 8 . It seems to have been originally a Jewish 
notion *; though a late learned writer chooses rather to derive it 
from the Platonic philosophy" : I think, improperly ; for it will 
be hard to prove, that Plato was before Tobit, or before the book 
bearing his name x . Besides that, the Pagans were more likely 
to borrow such things from Jews, than the Jews from them, But 
be that as it will, since the notion has no certain warrant in 
canonical Scripture, it was prudent to strike it out of our Church 
Offices. Upon the whole, though all human compositions must 
have their defects, more or less, I am persuaded, that our Com- 
munion Service, as it now stands, is as grave, and solemn, and as 
judicious, as any other that can be named, be it ancient or 
modern. It may want some things which were well inserted in 
other Offices ; but then it has well left out several other things, 
which most Liturgies are rather burdened with, than benefited. 
But I return. 

As to the main point now in hand, it is very plain from all 
liturgies, and from all kinds of ancient testimonies, that the 
Christian world has all along believed, that the Spirit of God is 
invisibly present, and operates effectually in both Sacraments; as 
well to confer a relative holiness upon the outward symbols, as 
to convey the grace of sanctification to the faithful recipients. 
Therefore the Socinians stand condemned as to this article, by 
all churches, ancient or modern, as well as by Scripture itself, and 
the plainest reason : neither have they any plea to offer on that 

cap 13, and Pseud- Ainbros. de Sacr. u Eisner, in Grace. Testam. torn. 

lib. iv. cap. 6. ii. p. 117. 

' Tobit xii. 15. x Of Tobit, see Prideaux's Con- 

Bucer. Script. Anglican, p. 473. nection, part i. p. 39. fol. edit. Fa- 

1 Cp. Testamentum Levi, in Grab. brie. Bibl. Grace, lib. iii. cap. 29. 

Spicileg. torn. i. p. 159. Dupin, Can. of the Old Test. p. 89. 

T 2 

2J6- Sanctifying Grace CHAP. 

side, which carries so much as the face of a direct argument. I 
am aware, that they may have something to plead obliquely, while 
arguing against the existence, or personality, or divinity of the 
Holy Ghost, or against any ordinary operations from above upon 
the minds of men, to enlighten or sanctify them : and whatever 
they may have to plead in respect to those previous points, will 
remotely affect the present question. But it is not my business 
here, to run out into those preliminary inquiries, almost foreign 
to the particular subject I am upon, and fitter to make distinct 
and separate treatises, than to be brought in here. As to direct 
arguments, I can think of few or none y at present, unless we 
may reckon that for one, which charges our doctrine in this 
particular, as making the Sacraments charms and spells; an 
objection built upon manifest calumny or misconception, and 
looking more like buffoonery than serious argument, especially as 
worded by some of that side. One of them Nvrites thus : ' When 
St. Austin defined a sacrament to be the outward visible sign of 
an inward invisible grace or energy, the good Father should have 
considered, that this is a definition of a charm, not of a Gospel 
Sacrament : for a charm is a bare outward visible sign, that 

which has no natural or real agreement with the effect 

They have turned the Gospel Sacraments into charms and 
spells z .' The same trifling impei'tinence might as justly be 
urged against Naaman's being healed of his leprosy by washing 
in Jordan a ; or against Hezekiah's being cured by a lump of 
figs b ; or against the blind man's receiving sight by the means 
of clay and spittle and washing in the pool of Siloam c . We 
place no more virtue in the naked symbols, than in the meanest 
instruments whatever, which God may at any time please to make 
use of, and sanctify to high and holy purposes. Those instru- 
ments in themselves do nothing : it is God that does all, in and 

y The "argument drawn against easily may, though near at hand all 

present benefits from the word re- the time. Vid. Nourrii Apparat. 

membrance has been obviated above, torn. i. p. 41 r. 

ch. iv. p. 70. I shitll only hint. ' Trinitarian Scheme of Religion, 

further, that remembering, in this pp. 24,25, printed in the year 1692. 

case, is not opposed to a tlrng's be- a 2 Kings v. 14. 

ing present, but to its being forgot, b 2 Kinjjs xx. 7. Isa. xxxviii. 21. 

as spiritual and invisible benefits c John ix. 7. 

X. conferred in the Eucharist. 277 

through the appointed use of them. He that blasphemes or de- 
rides the certain workings of God, or of the Spirit of God, upon 
the souls or bodies of men, under the names of charms, spells, 
enchantments, or the like, (as the Jews derided our Lord's 
miracles.) seems to forget the reverence due to Divine Majesty, 
and the respect which we owe to high and holy things. But to 
put the kindest and most favourable construction we can upon 
the objection as here worded, it is charging St. Austin and all 
the primitive churches, and their followers, with what they are 
notoriously known, not only never to have taught, but constantly 
to have disclaimed. They never do attribute to the bare elements 
the works of grace, but constantly ascribe them to the powerful 
hand of God, working in or with the elements. If that be 
working by charms or spells, let any man tell us, what super- 
natural or preternatural works of God are not as justly liable to 
the same imputation. 

If the purport of the objection be to reject all such Divine 
operations as we here suppose upon moral agents, as not con- 
sistent with human liberty ; that is a more general question, 
previous to what we are now upon, and therefore in a great 
measure foreign to the point in hand. It is sufficient to say, 
that the general doctrine of grace is so fully established in the 
New Testament, that no Christian can consistently reject it. As 
to the manner of it, it is not for us to presume to explain it: 
but we are certain it is wrought in a moral way, in a way con- 
sistent with moral agency and human liberty. We know the 
fact : we need no more. If any man will undertake to demon- 
strate a priori, that there can be no medium between irresistible 
impressions and none at all, or that God cannot sanctify, or 
purify, or enlighten the soul of man, in any degree, without 
making him a machine, he may perhaps deserve to be heard ; 
but in the meanwhile Scripture, express Scripture, will deserve 
our attention, and will command the faith of every true disciple 
of Christ. 

Some perhaps may think it an objection to what has been here 
pleaded, that grace is also promised, sometimes to prayer, some- 
times to faith, and sometimes to hearing, and therefore is not 

278 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 

peculiar to the Sacraments : for it has been suggested, that ' the 
spiritual eating of Christ is common to all places, as well as to the 
Lord's table d .' This I have touched upon before e , and shall only 
add here, that we do not confine God's grace to the Sacraments; 
neither do we assert any peculiar grace, as appropriate to them 
only : but what we assert is, some peculiar degree of the same 
graces, or some peculiar certainty, or constancy, as to the effect, in 
the due use of those means f . And if the Divine graces, more or 
less, go along with all the Divine ordinances, well may they be 
supposed to go along with those, which are the most solemn and 
most exalted of any, and have also more of a federal nature in 
them ; as has been hinted above , and will be proved at large 
in the chapter here following. 


Of tJie federal or covenanting Nature of the Holy EUCHARIST. 

IT is the prevailing docti'ine of Divines, that the Service of 
the holy Communion carries in it something of a federal nature, 
is a kind of covenanting or stipulating act ; not making a new 
covenant, but covenanting anew, confirming or renewing the 
stipulation before entered into at our Baptism. For the clearing 
of this important point, it will be proper, i. To premise some- 
thing of covenants in general between God and man. 2. To 
specify the ancient forms or methods of contracting under the 
Old Testament. 3. To descend to the latter forms of doing the 
same thing under the New Testament, by the Sacraments there- 
unto belonging, Baptism and the Lord's Supper. 

i. The Divine goodness and condescension is such, in all his 
dealings with mankind, that he considers always what is best 
for them, and may most help their infirmities. With these 

d Hales's Tracts, p. 57. peculiar! ter adscribi videtur, id inde 

e See above, p. 189, &c. est, quod fides, in Sacramentis, hanc 

f 'Verbum et Sacramenta in eo gratiam videat clarius, apprehendat 

conveniunt, quod ambo gratiam re- fortius, teneat certius.' Voss. de Sa- 

generationis offerant et exhibeant : cram. p. 251. 

sed quod ncnnunquam Sacramentis See above, p. 191. 

xi. as a Covenanting Rile. 

gracious views (while he is absolute Lord over them, and might 
issue out his sovereign commands to all, without admitting any 
mortal to contract for rewards, or to strike any league with 
him) he is pleased to enter into covenants with men, giving and 
taking assurances, and, as it were, binding both himself and 
them, in order to draw them the more strongly to him, and to 
engage them to look after their own everlasting happiness. Not 
that God thereby divests himself of his right over them, or that 
men have a right to refuse the covenant proposed to them, or 
would not be justly punishable for such refusal h : for indeed they 
are under a previous indispensable obligation to comply ; and 
the refusing it would deserve very severe punishment '. But the 
entering into covenant produces a closer relation and a stronger 
tie, and is much more engaging and attractive many ways, than 
naked precepts could be ^ ; as will be evident of itself to any 
man that reflects, and I need not enlarge upon it. 

In covenants between God and man, there is not, as in com- 
mon covenants, an equal and mutual meeting of each other, or a 
joint concurrence : but God is the first mover to invite and pro- 
pound ; and man comes in after, sooner or later, to accept and 
conclude. ' We love God, because he first loved us : ' * Herein is 
love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us V And our 
Lord says to his Disciples, ' Ye have not [first] chosen me, but I 
have [first] chosen you,' &c. m Another thing observable is, that 
there are not here, as in covenants between man and man, 
mutual advantages, or benefits reciprocal ; but all the advantage 
or benefit, properly so called, accrues to one party only, because 
the other is too pei-feet to receive any. Nevertheless, there is 
something analogous to benefits, or what may be considered as 
such, accruing to the Divine Majesty ; namely, external honour 
and glory, and such delight as he is conceived constantly to enjoy 
in the exercise of his goodness, wisdom, power, and other his 

h See Puflfendorf, Jus feciale Divi- k Vid. Hoornbeeck de Foedere 

num, sect. xx. p. 92, &c. Lat. edit. Ecclesiastico, Exercit. Theolosf. torn. 

p. 87. Engl. edit. Abp. Potter on iii. p. 640. 

Ch. Gov. p. 12, &c. i I John iv. 19, 10. 

1 Matt. x. 14, 15 ; xxii. 7- Luke m John xv. 16. 
xiv. 21 24. 

280 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 

attributes or perfections. Neither does this circumstantial differ- 
ence, arising from the infinite disparity of the parties contracting, 
at all affect the essence of the covenant supposed to be made be- 
tween them. For a covenant is, in its general nature, (as Baron 
Puffendorf defines it n ,) an union, consent, and agreement of two 
wills about the same thing : and if God proposes such and such 
terms, and man accepts them, there is then a formal covenant 
struck between them. God conditionally offers advantages on 
his side ; and man covenants to pay a suitable homage, adora- 
tion, and service, as required. 

That God has transacted, and does yet daily transact, covenants 
with mankind in succession, shall be shewn presently. Only I 
may here hint by the way, that many considerable Divines have 
supposed also a previous covenant between God the Father and 
God the Son, in the affair of man's salvation. There are several 
things hinted in holy Scripture, which look like an agreement, or 
covenant, that upon our Lord's undertaking to be Mediator, and 
performing what belongs to it, a reconciliation should ensue 
between God the Father and mankind. The texts, which chiefly 
seem to countenance that notion, are collected into one view by 
the excellent Puffendorf, to whom, for brevity sake, I choose to 
refer the reader P. 

2. I proceed to observe, that God has, time after time, trans- 
acted covenants with men, and under various formalities. There 
was a covenant of life made with man in Paradise, in his state of 
innocency l i ; which commonly goes under the name of the first 
covenant, or old covenant, and which continued for a very short 
space. To that immediately succeeded the second covenant, or 
new covenant, called also the covenant of grace, and made with 
lapsed man, in and through Christ Jesus. It commenced from 

" Puffendorf, Jus fecial. sect. xx. be seen references to a multitude of 

Cp. Deylingius, Observ. Sacr. writers, who have considered that 

torn. i. pp. 328, 329. Zornius, Opusc. article. 

Sacr. torn. ii. p. 240. 1 See this proved and explained by 

P Puffendorf, Jus fecial. sect. Bishop Bull, Appendix ad Animad. 

xxxvii. p. 144. Lat. p. 129. Engl. xvii , and Discourse concerning the 

edit. Cp. Dodwell, Diss. Cyprian, first Covenant, Opp. Posth. vol. iii. 

p. 448. Zornius, Opusc. Sacr. torn. p. 1065. &c. Compare Puffendorf, 

ii. pp. 240, 241, 242. In Zornius may Jus fecial. sect. xxiv. 

XI. as a Covenanting Rile. 281 

old time, in the world's infancy, as St. Paul testifies r ; though 
not clearly revealed nor fully executed till the days of the 
Gospel, but considered as executed from the beginning, so far 
forth as to be available for the remission of sin, in all ages, to 
men fitly qualified according to the terms of it. Besides these 
two eminent and general covenants, God entered into other 
inferior or more special covenants, (together with renewals also 
of this,) as with Noah s , with Abraham *, with Isaac u , with 
Jacob x , with Moses and Aaron v , and with Phinehas z , and their 
families after them. The legal covenant, or Sinai covenant, was 
made between God and the Israelites, by the hand of Moses . 
It was in itself a temporal covenant, containing only temporal 
promises : but in its retired, mystical meaning, it figured out 
the spiritual covenant before made, and was a shadow of good 
things to come* 3 . That external covenant (representing as 
through a glass darkly the internal) was often renewed with the 
people of the Hebrews : as in the time of Joshua at Sichem c , 
and in the reigns of Asa d and of Ahab e , and of Joash f , Heze- 
kiah g, and Josiah h . This I note to obviate a common mistake, 
as if, because a covenant has been once granted and fixed on 
God's part, it may not be properly said to be regranted, or re- 
newed, with a fleeting body of men, as new generations come up. 
Indeed it seems highly expedient, that such covenants should be 

T Tit. i. 2. ripb \p6vtav a'avtuv, be- ? Exod. vi. 4 7 ; iv. 28. Ecclus. 

fore ancient times. Vid. Bull, Opp. xlv. 7, 15. 

Posth. vol. ii. p. 591. Cp. Horn. xvi. z Numb. xxv. 12, 13. Here the 

25. Coloss. i. 26. i Pet. i. 20. covenant was conditional, (as appears 

8 Gen. vi. 18 ; ix. 9-18. In the by the forfeiture of the priesthood 
first instance, there was express en- afterwards,) and accepting the priest- 
gagement on one side, tacit on the hood was accepting the conditions : 
other. See Le Clerc in loc. In the therefore, in this instance, the en- 
second, there appears to have been gagement was reciprocal, amounting 
no more than simple engagement on to a formal covenant, 
one side. But in the instances fol- a Exod. xix. 3 ; xxiv. 8. Deut. v. 
lowing, there were mutual or reci- 5. Gal. iii. 19. 
procal engagements, tacit or ex- b Heb. viii. 5 ; x. i. 
press. c Joshua xxiv. 14 25. 

* Gen. xii. 2, 3 ; xv. 18 ; xvii. 2 d 2 Chron. xv. 12, &c. 
22. Ecclus. xliv. 20. e I Kings xviii. 39. 

u Gen. xvii. 19; xxi. 2; xxvi. 2, 3. f 2 Chron. xxiii. 16, &c. . 

Ecclus. xliv. 22. Psalm cv. 9. * i Chron. xxix. 10. 

* Gen. xxviii. 13, 14, 20, 21, 22 ; k i Chron. xxxiv. 31, 32. 2 Kings 
xxxv. 9, &c. Ecclus. xliv. 23. xxiii. 3. 

282 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 

renewed frequently, because the men coming up in succession are 
new, though God is always the same ; and it is proper that the 
contracting parties should make it their own act and deed. The 
stipulations, which I have now been speaking of, were between 
God and his people collectively considered. But besides these, 
there were also standing forms of covenanting between God and 
particular persons. Such were sacrifices in general, and such 
also were the Sacraments of the old Law, and more especially 
Circumcision and the Passover, to which respectively the Chris- 
tian Sacraments succeeded. 

That sacrifices were federal rites, is a point generally allowed 
by the learned, and which I need not here be at the pains to 
prove 1 . What I shall more particularly insist on shall be the 
Jewish Sacraments previous to ours, the two most eminent, just 
before named. 

I begin with Circumcision ; which was manifestly a federal 
rite, a formal stipulation between God and man ; carrying in it 
mutual engagements of blessings on one hand, and service on 
the othei*. It is said of Circumcision, ' This is my covenant,' 
&c., and 'it shall be a token of the covenant;' and a little 
after, ' my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting 
covenant;' and the ' uncircumcised shall be cut off,' as having 
'broken my covenant k .' All which imply that it was a cove- 
nanting rite, a contract, or stipulation, passed between two 
parties, namely, between God and man. But for the clearer 
apprehending of this matter, we may consider in Circumcision, 
as in every other sacrament, a sign, and a thing signified, or both 
together, as one transaction. If the name be applied to the bare 
sign, then Circumcision is not a stipulation, but the token of it ; 
and if it be applied to the thing signified, it means the terms of 
agreement: but if it be applied to the whole transaction between 
both parties, then it is formally the contract or stipulation entered 
into here and there. So that according to different views, the 
word circumcision may either stand for the sign, token, seal of 

1 See Mede, Opp. p. 370. Dodwell, Government, p. 266. Spencer de Leg. 
One Altar, &c. c. vii. pp. 145, &c. Hebr. torn. ii. p. 766. edit. Cant. 
136, c. Archbishop Potter on Church k Gen. xvii. 9 14. 

xi. as a covenanting Rite. 283 

the contract, or for the contract itself, passing under those forms. 
This observation will be of use hereafter, for the clearer appre- 
hension of the two Christian Sacraments ; which in like manner 
are either signs and seals of a covenant, or the very acts of cove- 
nanting, according as you understand the word sacrament in a 
stricter or larger sense. But I pass on. That Circumcision 
carried in it a bond of obligation on man's part, is very plain, 
since it made a man a 'debtor to the whole law 1 .' And that 
it likewise carried in it a correspondent engagement on God's 
part, is as plain from God's promises made at the institution of 
it m , and from its being styled a 'seal of the righteousness of 
faith n : ' that is to say, a kind of instrument, by which God 
sealed or assured to the parties his acceptance of such righteous- 
ness, as Abraham was accepted in ; and such as was signified 
under that outward rite, styled in Scripture the 'circumcision 
of the heart .' But it would be tedious to dwell longer upon a 
by-point, and one so often discussed by knowing and judicious 
Divines P. 

The other ordinary Sacrament of the Jewish church was the 
Passover. That it was a federal rite, may be strongly argued 
from several topics, which I shall barely touch upon in passing. 
I. From its being a proper sacrifice; a point now concluded 
among the learned 9, and scarce admitting of any further dis- 
pute. 2. From its typical and mysterious nature, pointing to 
Christ and his sufferings, and the fruits thereof, in many obserr- 
able circumstances r , too long to mention in this place. 3. From 

1 Gal. v. 3. Timothy's case was 1 Cudworth on the Lord's Supper, 

singular, founded on particular cir- ch. ii. Bochart. Hierozoic. torn. ii. 

cumstances, and can be no impeach- p. 573. Hottinger in Notis ad Tho. 

ment of the general maxim. Goodwin, p. 535. Outram de Sacri- 

m Gen. xvii. 7. ficiis, lib. i. c. 13. pp. 146, 147. Re- 

n Bom. iv. ii. land, Antiq. Vet. Heb. par. iii. p. 

Rom. ii. 29. Compare Deut. x. 378. Bishop Patrick in Exod. xii. 

1 6 ; xxx. 6. Jerem. iv. 4. 27. Clericus in Num. ix. 7. Vit- 

P Bucer, Script. Anglican, p. 608, ringa, Observ. Sacr. torn. i. p. 295. 

&c. Buddaeus, Miscell. Sacr. torn. Deylingius, Obs. Sacr. torn. iii. p. 

iii. p. 8, &c. Witsius, Oecon. Foed. 332 ; torn. L p. 287. Moshemius, 

p. 700, &c. Towerson on the Sacra- Not. ad Cudworth. pp. 18, 19. 
merits, part iv. p. 47, &c. Hoom- r Witsius, Oecon. Foederum, pp. 

beeck, Socin. Cp. torn. iii. lib. 3. 722 730. Vitringa, Observ. Sacr. 

p. 231, &c. torn. i. lib. 3. cap. 9. p. 415, &c. 

284 The Eucharist, considered CHAP. 

the case of the other Jewish Sacraments extraordinary, such as 
the manna, and the rock, &c., which remitted men to Christ, 
and were a kind of spiritual food s to as many as were worthy ; 
importing a federal relation to Almighty God, and a communion 
with him. 4. From express texts, intimating that the Passover 
was intended as a sign, and a token, and a memorial, to keep up 
a constant sense of. and regard for, 'the law of the Lord 1 , 1 
and for that deliverance, by which God confirmed unto himself 
that people to be his 'people for ever u .' So that in that 
service were implied the people's engaging to 'keep the law of 
God,' and God's engaging to be their God, while they did so ; 
which two things taken together make up the formal notion of 
a contract, or covenant. 

From the Jewish Sacraments we may pass on to the Christian 
Sacraments, analogous to them, but exceeding them in several 
respects, as being less burdensome, and of clearer signification 
and application, and made essential parts of an higher and more 
excellent institution. Method requires that I should first say 
something of Baptism, the initiating Sacrament, by which a 
man ordinarily first enters into covenant with God, becoming a 
Christian x . That Baptism is a federal rite, a formal stipulation 
between God and the party baptized, might be probably argued 
many ways v . But for brevity sake, I shall confine myself to the 
consideration of one express text ; which I render thus : ' The 

s I Cor. x. i 4. See above, p. necessary as the rest : or, not to 

1 29. dispute about words, it is at least 

* Exod. xiii. 9, 16. See Felling on part of the terms of acceptance, 
the Lord's Supper, pp. 63, 91, 112, and of true Christian obedience, and 
253. so of evangelical repentance ; which, 

u 2 Sam. vii. 24. according to its full notion, is but 

* Some have been willing to sup- another name for evangelical obedi- 
pose, that if a man embraces Chris- ence. So that it is in vain to speak 
tianity, and fulfils the terms, viz. of Christian repentance or obedience 
faith and repentance, he is ipso as entire, without taking in coufor- 
facto entered into covenant, with- mity to the Sacraments, which is 
out any formal stipulation. But implied in the other, as a part is 
Scripture is plain : ' He that believ- included in the whole. Compare 
eth and is baptized shall be saved.' Archbishop Potter on Church Go- 
Mark xvi. 16. And, ' Except one vernment, pp. 16, 17. 

be born of water, &c. he cannot y Vid. Dodwell, Cyprian. Dissertat. 
enter into the kingdom of God.' xiii. sect. 42. p. 442, &c. Vossius de 
John iii. 5. The stipulation is as Baptism. Disp. iv. Thes. iii. p. 269. 

xi. 'as a Covenanting Rite. 285 

like figure whereunto Baptism doth now save us ; not the 
putting away the filth of the flesh, but the stipulation [r*p&>- 
rr](j.d\ of a good conscience to Godward, by the resurrection 
of Christ 2 .' Here we have the very doctrine which I am 
pleading for, that Baptism is a federal rite, a stipulation with 
God. So Beza and Grotius, and other critics of best note*, 
interpret the place, and gave very substantial reasons for it, 
which I need not here recite. I shall only add, that the ancients 
constantly taught, that Baptism was a covenanting rite, a solemn 
form of stipulating with God k, the seal of the Lord c ; and that 
it succeeded in the room of Circumcision, being therefore called 
the Christian circumcision, ' made without hands d ,' or the spiri- 
tual cii-cumcision e , as a figure and instrument of it. 

Having thus far cleared the way, we may now proceed to the 
Sacrament of the Eucharist, the last of the four. And since it 
appears that the three former Sacraments were federal rites, 
that single consideration affords us a presumptive argument that 
this is so likewise. But there are several other considerations, 
that more directly prove it ; and these are what I am going to 
lay down in their order : 

i. That the eucharistical service is a federal service, follows 
directly from what has been before proved, that it imports and 
implies a real and vital communion between God and every 
worthy receiver. For what can communion, in this case, import 
less than covenanting ? The least that it implies is a reciprocal 
intercourse of blessings on one hand, and homage on the other ; 
which, in effect, is the same thing with mutual stipulations f . If 

* I Pet. iii. 21. 641. Pseudo-Dionys. Areop. cap. iii. 

a They are most of them num- Facund. lib. iv. p. 62. Compare 

bered by Wolfius upon the text, Bingham, xi. 6. 7. 

who closes in with them. c See Bingham, xi. I. 6. 

b Tertullian styles it ' obsignatio d Coloss. ii. n, 12. Basil. Homil. 

fidei.' De Poenitent. cap. vi. ' Tes- in Baptism, p. 115. torn. ii. Chry- 

tatio fidei, sponsio salutis.' De sost. in Gen. Horn. xl. Cyrill. Alex- 

Bapt. cap. vi. ' Anima non lava- andr. in Joan. lib. iv. cap. 7. p. 

tione, sed responsione sancitur.' 432. 

De Kesur. Cam. cap. xlviii. ' Fidei e Vid. Justin. Mart. Dial. p. 222. 

pactio.' De Pudio. cap. ix. Cp. Cyprian. Epist. Ixiv. p. 161. 

Basil, de Spir. Sancto, cap. xii. p. f See Johnson's Unbloody Sacri- 

24. Gregor. Nazianz. Orat. xl. p. fice, part ii. pp. 27, 103, 104, 105. 

a 86 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 

it be said, that it is only performing, or executing, on both 
sides, what was before stipulated in Baptism, it is obvious to 
reply, that such performances, on both sides, carry in them the 
strongest assurances of a continuation of the same, and so 
amount, in just construction, to a repetition, or renewal, of the 
reciprocal engagements. 

2. The federal nature of the Eucharist may be further argued 
from what learned men have shewn of the customs of divers 
nations, in drinking either blood, or wine instead of blood, for the 
ratifying of covenants . Such kind of drinking was a noted 
federal rite long before the institution of the Eucharist : a con- 
sideration which, taken alone, affords a strong presumptive 
argument of the federal nature of this Sacrament, but if taken 
together with our Lord's own comment upon it, in the words, 
' Drink ye all of this, for this is the new covenant,' &c., can leave 
but little room for any reasonable dispute about it. 

3. But we may argue, still more directly, from our Lord's own 
words, ' This cup, or wine, is my blood of the new covenant h ,' 
and ' This is the new covenant in my blood 1 .' I render diadr/icrj, 
' covenant,' rather than ' testament,' because such appears to be 
the constant sense of it in the Septuagint k , as also in the New 
Testament, excepting perhaps one place of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews J . Indeed, either the name testament, or the name of 
covenant, is applicable to the same thing, considered under 
different views ; as the new covenant is of a mixed or middle 
kind, in some respects federal, and in some testamentary, and, 
as it were, a compound of both : for which reason it has been 
indifferently and pi-omiscuously called either a federal testament, 

Grotius in Matt. xxvi. 26, 27. mentum non voluntatem defuncto- 

Spencer. de Leg. Hebr. p. 614. edit, rum sonare, sed pactum viventium." 

Cant. Zornius, Bibliothec. Antiqua- Hieron. in Mai. c. ii. 1816. Cp. 

ria Exeg. p. 615. Salmas. de Transubstant. p. 541. 

11 Matt. xxvi. 28. Mxvk xiv. 24. l Heb. ix. 16, 17. Vid. Wolfius, 

1 Luke xxii. 19. I Cor. xi. 25. Grit. Cur. in loc. Towerson on the 

k ' Notandum quod brith, verbum Sacraments, part i. p. 14, &c. 

Hebraicum, Aquila avvQj\nt\v, id est, ' Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotio 

pactum, interpretatur : LXX semper passim ffvfO-fiKi), pactum, foedus. 

biaB-fiKfiv, id est, testamentum. Et in LXX saepius Sta&iiKij, testamentum." 

plejisque scripturarum locis testa- Montfauc. Lexic. ad Hexapl. 

XI. as a Covenanting Rite. 287 

or a testamentary covenant, to intimate its compound nature m . 
But I take the federal notion of it to be the primary or principal 
part of the idea, and to suit best with the then prevailing sense 

of the word SiadrjKrj n . 

Our Lord's expressions in the institution are plainly federal 
expressions ; as will appear by comparing them with other the 
like expressions made use of in the Old Testament in federal 
solemnities . When God instituted the federal rite of Circum- 
cision, he said; 'This is my covenant, which ye shall keepP,' 
&c. Therefore, as sure as Circumcision was a federal rite of the 
Jewish Church, so sure is it that the Eucharist is a federal 
solemnity among Christians. When God struck up a covenant 
with the people of the Hebrews, by the sprinkling of blood, the 
form ran, ' Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord 
hath madeV &c. As much as to say, 'Look upon yourselves 
as obliged by these federal solemnities to observe all the com- 
mands which I have here delivered.' Accordingly, it is observ- 
able, that the people there instantly promised and engaged ' to do 
all that the Lord had said, and to be obedient r :' which was 
expressing their formal consent, and executing, as it were, their 
counterpart in the stipulation 8 . Now as our blessed Lord, in 
the institution of the Eucharist, addressed himself to Jews, who 

m ' Nostrum foedus cum Deo non See Nature and Obligation of the 

purum aut simplex quoddam foedus Christian Sacraments, vol. v. pp. 91, 

est, sed habens quidlam mistum ex 102, &c. 

foedere et testamento. Cbristus in P AU'TTJ i] 5ia6riKTi, *t\v 

maiiu habet id, de quo pactus est Gen. xvii. 10. 

cum hominibus Deus, aeternam ni- 1 'iSov rb of/ua TTJJ 

mirum haereditatem : quoniam au- SifBero Kvpios, &c. Exod. xxiv. 8. 

tern hie non nisi moriendo nobis illud Vid. Patrick in loc. et Bucherus, 

jus acquirit, idciroo quod ad Chris- Ant. Evang. ad Matth. xxvi. 28. 

turn ipsum attinet, pactum istud pp. 386, 389. 

inter Deum et homines initum, spe- * Exod. xxiv. 3, 7- Compare Deut. 

ciem quandam testamenti refert, v. 27. 

quasi ipse moriens aeterni regni nos Other like instances of express 

fecerit haeredes.' Zornius, Opusc. consent on man's part may be seen 

Sacr. torn. ii. p. 239. See Twells's in Gen. xxviii. 20, &c. Exod. xix. 

Examination of New Text and Ver- 8. Josh. xxiv. 21, 24, 25. 2 Chron. 

sion, part ii. p. 64. xv. 14, 15: xxiii. 16 ; xxix. 10 ; 

n Vid. Zornius, Opusc. Sacr. torn, xxxiv. 31. Ezr. x. 3. Nehem. ix. 

ii- P- 238. 38 ; x. 28, 29, 39. 

Exod. xxiv. 8. Gen. xvii. 10. 

288 The Eucharist considered CHAP.' 

had been accustomed to such federal phrases, it is highly reason- 
able to believe, that he intended the phrases in such a sense as 
they would be apt to take them in, namely, in a federal sense. 

Socinus, to elude this argument, pretends l , that our Lord's 
words in that case may mean only, that this sacramental cup, or 
wine, is a memorial or commemoration of the blood once shed, and 
of the covenant therein founded, or thereby executed. But if we 
have hitherto gone upon sure grounds, it will be easy to throw 
off those laboured subtilties. For since it is manifest, from the 
express doctrine of the Apostle, that the Eucharist is not barely 
a memorial, but a communion also of the blood, and of what goes 
along with it ; it will undeniably follow, that the same Eucharist 
is not merely a memorial of the covenant, going along with the 
blood, but a communion also, or participation of it, on man's 
side : and if there be a participation on one side, there must be 
also a communication on the other side ; and so both parts are 
complete. God re-admits us into covenant, and we re-accept, 
under this appointed form, under this holy solemnity ; and thus 
the mutual league of amity is re-established, the compact re- 
newed and confirmed. Every worthy receiver, as often as he 
symbolically receives the blood, revives and recruits his interest 
in our Lord's passion, and in the covenant thereupon founded ; 
he takes new hold of it, and binds himself over to it by more and 
stronger ties ; which is what we mean by renewing the baptismal 
covenant in this other Sacrament of the holy Eucharist. How 

4 ' Hinc apparet, cum ipsum pocu- p. 239. Slichting. in i Cor. xi. 

lum novum testamentum esse in suo 25. 

sanguine Chri.stus dixisse legitur, Crellius's account is not much 
aliud nihil intelligendum esse, quam different, in making it to be a kind 
vini ex illo poculo potu, novi testa- of declaration or testification of our 
menti quod nobiscum suo sanguine partaking of, or pertaining to the 
interveniente pepigit (seu potius sui new covenant. ['Testamentum vero, 
sanguinis, qui ad novum testamen- sive foedus novum ideo appellatur, 
turn confinnandum fusus fuit) com- quia sit solennis ritus, quo omnes 
memoration em fieri Ipsi bibentes, Christian! in perpetuum profited 
novum testamentum praedicant et debeant, se ad novum foedus perti- 
commemorant : idque secum pactum nere.' Crellii Ethic, p. 352; cp. 
fuisse, aliis testantur ac significant. 353.] This is just such anoth r 
. . . Sicque sibi persuasum esse indi- evasion, as the interpreting ' corn- 
cant.' Socin. de Usu et Fine Coenae munion' by ' a declaration of com- 
Doniini, p. 36, alias 759. Oj p. torn, munion,' and admits of the like 
i. Cp. Catech. Racov. sect. vi. c. 4. answer. See above, p. 183, &c. 

xi. as a Covenanting Rite. 289 

insignificant, unedifying, and comfortless, in comparison, is a 
bare commemoration ! It neither ansAvers the force of our 
Lord's words, further interpreted by St. Paul, nor the pur- 
poses of holiness, nor the nature, ends, or uses of the spiritual 
life, nor God's usual methods of dealing with his Church and 
people in all former ages. 

4. The federal nature of the Eucharist may be further con- 
firmed from the very observable analogy, which St. Paul takes 
notice of and illustrates 11 , between the Sacrament of the holy 
Communion, and the sacrifices of the Jews and Gentiles. They 
were of a federal nature, by the Apostle's account of them and 
so must this be also, if it was in that very view that he formed 
the comparison, or parallel. I beg leave here to use the words 
of a very judicious and learned Prelate of our Church, who says ; 
'In the ancient sacrifices both among Jews and heathens, one 
part of the victim was offered upon the altar, and another re- 
served to be eaten of those persons in whose name the sacrifice 
was made : this was accounted a sort of partaking of God's table, 
and was a federal rite, whereby he owned his guests to be in his 
favour, and under his protection, as they by offering sacrifices 
acknowledged him to be their God v .... The Lord's Supper was 

always believed to succeed in the place of sacrifices x Eating the 

Lord's Supper was the same rite in the Christian Church with 
eating the things offered in sacrifice among the Jews and heathens. 
It is an act of communion or fellowship with God, at whose table 
we are said to be entertained ; and therefore it is declared to be 
inconsistent with eating the Gentile sacrifices, which is an act 
of communion with devils, to whom these sacrifices were offered y.' 
From these plain and undeniable principles it directly follows, 
that the Eucharist is, at the lowest, a federal rite : I say, at the 
lowest, because more than that has been proved, as I conceive, 
in a former chapter, which treats of i Cor. x. 16. 

A late Divine of our Church, in a little piece of his Upon this 
subject, has a distinction worth the examining, which I shall here 
give the reader in hi? own words : ' The Lord's Supper is not 

u i Cor. x. 1 6. v Archb. Potter on Church Government, p. 266. 

x Ibid. p. 265. y Ibid. pp. 269, 270. 


290 TJie Eucharist considered CHAP. 

properly the federal rite, or the covenant rite, but the memorial 
of it : the death of Christ was the federal rite, and the Lord's 
Supper is the memorial of Christ's death. But though the Lord's 
Supper is neither a proper sacrifice, nor the great, original, or 
primitive federal rite, strictly speaking ; yet being a feast upon 
a sacrifice, (or in commemoration of that great sacrifice of the 
death of Christ, which was the true and proper federal or cove- 
nant rite,) it may be styled a federal rite, in the same sense in 
which the Jews' eating of their sacrifices was or might be 
esteemed to be such a rite, viz. an open profession of their being 
in covenant with God, and having devoted themselves to his 
service as his peculiar people 7 .' I said, this distinction was 
worth the examining. I judge it not accurate, nor indeed right 
upon the whole : but it appears to be well aimed ; and it points 
out to us some difficulties which seem to want a clearer solution. 
The distinction would have answered better, had it been made 
to run between covenant and covenant, (than between federal 
rites, proper and improper,) or between covenant considered at 
large and particular stipulations. If the death of Christ is 
properly a federal rite at all, it is with respect to the covenant 
made between God the Father and Christ Jesus, in behalf of 
mankind collectively considered, and not with respect to the 
several stipulations coming after, and made between God and 
particular men. The Eucharist may as properly be said to be 
a federal rite with regard to these particular stipulations, as the 
death of Christ can be supposed to be with regard to the new 
covenant at large. But I much question, whether the death of 
Christ ought to be called a federal rite at all ; which appears to 
be too low and too diminutive a name for it : especially con- 
sidering the ill use which the Socinians have been apt to make 
of it. The death of Christ is really the price of our redemption, 
the valuable consideration, whereupon the covenant was founded, 
and in which it stands. It was submitted to, once for all, and 
is never to be repeated ; which sufficiently distinguishes it from 
whatever has hitherto passed under the name of a federal rite. 

1 Mapletoft's Plain Account of the Lord's Supper, p. 138. 

xi. as a Covenanting Rite. 291 

and shews it to be a tiling of much higher consideration. There- 
fore, let not the name of federal rite be so improperly applied to 
what was no rite at all, nor can ever come under the common 
or proper notion of a religious or federal rite. But the sacrifices 
and sacraments of the Jewish Church were properly federal 
rites : and since the Christian Sacraments are allowed to be 
federal rites in as proper a sense as those were, that is sufficient 
to our purpose. They were ceremonious observances, made use 
of in stipulations between God and man ; and so are these : 
not essential to the stipulation 'necessitate medii,' but 'necessitate 
praecepti ;' not in themselves, but as required, and made neces- 
sary to us by free and voluntary appointment. However, they 
are more than an open profession of our being in covenant with 
God : they are covenanting rites, or stipulating acts, by which 
our stipulation with God either commences, (as in Baptism,) or 
is renewed, as in the other Sacrament, which we are now upon. 

The author last cited allows the Eucharist to be a feast upon 
a sacrifice, and so of consequence a federal feast. This is a 
notion which may deserve a more particular consideration in 
this place ; and the rather because it was very plausibly ad- 
vanced by an eminent Divine of our Church near a hundred 
years ago a , and long passed current among divines and critics of 
the first rank, both here and abroad, but has been lately dis- 
puted by several learned hands, with great acuteness, though 
perhaps not with equal solidity. It may be a piece of justice 
due to a great man, and to an important cause, to examine 
fairly, but as briefly also as may be, the strength of what has 
been objected to a prevailing notion, which for some time ap- 
peared, and still appears, to carry in it the features of truth. 
The notion, in short, is this ; that the Eucharist, considered in 
its spiritual and mystical view, is a feast upon a sacrifice, (viz. 
the sacrifice once offered upon the cross,) bearing some analogy 
to the Jewish sacrificial feasts, which were figures or shadows 
of this true spiritual feeding. For as those were banquets upon 
typical sacrifices, this is a banquet upon the real sacrifice, to 

a Dr. Cud worth, True Notion of the Lord's Supper, A.D. 1642, first edit. 

U 2 

292 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 

which they pointed : and as those banquets were federal directly, 
with respect to the legal covenant ; so is this banquet federal 
with respect to the evangelical covenant, formerly couched under 
the legal one. This, I think, is the sum and substance of 
Dr. Cudworth's True Notion of the Lord's Supper. Next let us 
examine what has been objected to it. 

The first considerable author that appeared against it, was a 
learned Divine of our own b , who had an hypothesis to serve, of 
which I shall say nothing here, reserving it for the next chapter, 
where it shall be examined at large. Most of his objections 
against Dr. Cudworth's notion belong to that hypothesis of a 
material sacrifice, and therefore may here be passed over. I 
shall only take notice of one thing objected, namely, that neither 
priests nor people ever feasted on any sacrifices, which they had 
not offered before ; therefore Dr. Cudworth's nation suits not 
with the ancient sacrificial feasts c . But it is easy to reply, that 
one disagreeing circumstance, found among many resembling 
ones, is not sufficient to overturn the analogy : besides, in this 
very case, the Christian feast, or feastings, upon what was offered 
by the true High Priest Christ Jesus, very fitly answer, in the 
analogy, to the Jewish feastings upon what had been offered by 
their typical priests, or high priest : so that I see no force at all 
in the objection. 

Another learned wi'iter, some years after, expressed his dislike 
of Dr. Cudworth's notion, and argued against it as far as either 
wit or learning could supply : I shall here consider his objections : 

1. He intimates, as if it were absurd that Christians 'should 
feast upon something that is a sacrifice, and not offered d .' But 
were not Christ's body and blood offered 1 That is the sacrifice 
which Christians feast upon in the Eucharist, according to 
Dr. CudAvorth : they feast upon the passion. 

2. It is further pleaded, that Dr. Cudworth's notion seems 
' much of a piece with that conceit of the Calvinists, that we 
receive the natural body of Christ in the Eucharist, though as 

b Hickes's Christian Priesthood, c, ibid. p. 170. 
p. 165. I use the third edition of d Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, 
I? 11 - part i. p. 338, alias 344. 

xi. as a Covenanting Rite. 293 

far distant from us as heaven is from the earth e .' But that 
conceit, as it is called, is a very sober truth, if understood of 
receiving the natural body into closer mystical uuion, as explained 
in a preceding chapter. However, Dr. Cudworth's notion of a 
banquet relates not to the body considered as glorified, but to the 
body considered as crucified, in which respect only it is eaten ; 
so that this objection may be looked upon as foreign. 

3. It is further objected by the same learned author, that 
' upon this supposition our Saviour made a feast upon the sacri- 
fice, before the sacrifice had been offered f .' And why might he 
not, especially when the time was so near approaching, and the 
sacrifice just going to be offered, that it might well be considered 
as a thing done ? This objection however affects only the first 
and original Eucharist, not the succeeding ones : and the like 
objection might be as justly urged against the original passover, 
as differing in its nature and notion from the passovers that 
succeeded. It might be pleaded, for instance, that the paschal 
feast was no memorial, no passover, because the first passover 
(which was the pattern for the following ones) was previous? 
to the great transaction commemorated in it, previous to the 
passing over the dwellings of the Hebrews. But such kind of 
arguing in that Sacrament would be justly rejected as frivolous 
or captious, since there was no more difference between the 
original passover and the later ones, than the necessary difference 
of circumstances required. Such is the case also with respect to 
the original Eucharist, and the later Eucharist : the same kind of 
prolepsis will equally solve the difficulty, whether here or there. 

4. It is objected, that it 'cannot be said that the Eucharist 
is a feast on a sacrifice,' unless it be allowed either that the bare 
elements are a sacrifice, or else that they are transubstantiated 
into the real body h . But a symbolical or spiritual feast upon a 
sacrifice (which is all that Dr. Cudworth maintains) may very 
well be supposed without either : the sacrificial feast, which we 
here plead for, is not a feast of the mouth, but of the mind ; not 

e Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, See Exod. xii. 21, &c. 
part i. p. 338, alias 344. b Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice. 

1 Ibid, part ii. pref. p. 3. part ii. pref. p. 4. 

294 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 

a bodily banquet, but a banquet of the soul, upon the fruits of the 
death of Christ. 

5. It is objected, that Christ's crucified body, and blood shed, 
are now no more, have no being as such, and therefore there can 
be no feast upon them; consequently, it is but an airy notion to 
imagine any such feast or sacrifice . To which we may reply, 
that though the crucified body, as such, is not, and though the 
blood shed is not, yet the fruits remain, and ever will remain, as 
a feast for good men here and hereafter : but as to oral mandu- 
cation, either of the natural body, or of the 'res sacramenti,' 
(whatever it is supposed to be,) and as to a material feast, and 
a material sacrifice in the Eucharist, those indeed have been 
favourite notions among many, but are not sufficiently supported 
by Scripture or antiquity. I meet with nothing more, in the last 
learned writer, against Dr. Cudworth's explication of the Lord's 
Supper. But I may note, by the way, that whereas it had been 
before objected, that the notion was entirely new and singular, 
this learned gentleman is so ingenuous as to own, ' that the 
ancients did sometimes speak of receiving the Sacrament, as of 
a banquet upon what had been first offered to God k / and with 
some allusion also to the feasts upon the peace offerings under 
the Law \ And I may add, that the ancient testimonies referred 
to plainly shew, that those ancients spoke of a banquet upon the 
things signified, (not upon the signs only,) and upon the real 
sacrifice, not upon the bare memorial : so that Dr. Cudworth's 
notion accords well with those ancients. 

From our own Divines I may next proceed to some learned 
foreigners, of the Lutheran way, who have also, now lately, 
expressed some dissatisfaction with respect to Dr. Cudworth's 
hypothesis : for though they readily approve of his rejecting any 
corporeal or material sacrifice in the Eucharist, yet finding that 
his notion is not favourable to local presence and oral manduca- 
tion, they also have shewn some inclination to discredit it, or, if 
it might be, to confute it. 

1 Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, part ii. pref. p. 4. 
k Ibid, part i. p. 338, alias 344. 
i Ibid. p. 345. 

xi. as a Covenanting Rite. 295 

The learned Pfaffius, in the year 1715, made some mention of 
Dr. Cudworth's hypothesis ; first, commending it as very inge- 
nious, and next labouring to warp it to the Lutheran notion of 
a real and local presence m . But at the same time, he took 
notice of some objections made to it, (mostly the same which I 
have above recited and answered,) and honoured them with his 
own approbation n . Besides which, he thought also of a new 
objection, which may here deserve considering. 

The objection is, that Christ was properly a sin offering, 
answering to the Levitical sacrifices of that kind, which were 
never feasted upon ; therefore the eucharistical banquet does not 
aptly correspond to the sacrificial feasts, which were appropriate 
to peace offerings, and belonged not to sin offerings . But the 
answer to this is very short and obvious : Christ our Lord was 
a sin offering and a peace offering, both in one ; as is plainly 
taught by St. Paul P. And if the sacrifice of Christ be considered 
in the Eucharist, under its most comfortable, most endearing 
view, as a peace offering, (not excluding the other views,) have 
we any reason to object against so wise and so kind an institu- 
tion ? To represent the sacrifice of Christ merely as a sin offering, 
would be representing nothing but the melancholy and dismal 
part of it, which had not the sweet odour, the sweet-smelling 
savour accompanying it Dr. Cudworth's notion of a sacrificial 
feast goes upon the more delightful view, as St. Paul's also 
does in the text before referred to : therefore there is no more 
room for objecting, in this respect, against our learned author, 
than there is for objecting against the blessed Apostle, But 
I pass on. 

The excellent Buddaeus (in a dissertation written in 1715, 
published in 1727) expresses himself with great caution and 

m Pfaffius, Obi. Vet. quale Christus fuit, 2 Cor. v. 21, 

Eucharist, p. 199. Hebr. ix. 12) non confici, nee san- 

n Pfiiffius, ibid. pp. 170, 171, et guis unquam bibi potuit. Levit. 

in Addendis. vi. 30. Dent. xii. 27.' Pfaff. p. 171. 

' Nee negari tamen potest, S. P v. 2. Cp. Wolfius in loe. 

Euchari.stiam in eo ab epulo sacri- Witsii Miscellan. Sacr. lib. ii. diss. 

ficiali diff'erre, quod hoc ex sacrificio 2. pp. 511, 512. Deylingii Obser- 

pro peccato (oujus sanguis in sane- vat. Sacr. torn. L pp. 315, S 1 ^- 

turn sanctorum inferri debuit, et Outram, de Sacrif. pp. 209 214. 

296 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 

tenderness concerning Dr. Cudworth's notion of the Lord's 
Supper : and all the fault he has to find with it is, that it appears 
not favourable to the Lutheran notion of the real presence, 
resolving the eucharistical supper (as he supposed) into signs 
only and symbols <J. The objection runs in terms too general and 
indefinite : for ' real presence' is a phrase of some latitude, and 
capable of more senses than one. If a real participation of the 
fruits of Christ's passion, together with a real strengthening of 
the mystical union of our bodies with Christ's glorified body 
(however distant) may suffice, Dr. Cudworth's notion will not be 
found defective so far : but if the design of the objection be to 
plead for an oral manducation of Christ's natural body, or a local 
presence of it, (crucified or glorified,) that stands upon no 
authority of Scripture or antiquity, but was condemned long ago 
by our Lord himself, in his answer to the Capernaites r . 

Another very learned and ingenious Lutheran has taken par- 
ticular pains to confute (if it were possible) Dr. Cudworth's True 
Notion, in his notes upon the Latin version, and in his preface 
to the same, printed A.D. 1733. His great concern is for the 
real and local presence : and he represents Dr. Cudworth, not 
only as making the elements bare symbols and figures, which 
is true, but as making the Lord's Supper itself nothing more 
than a memorial B ; which is contrary to truth and fact, and is a 
manifest injury done to his very learned author. For how could 
Dr. Cudworth be supposed to make the Eucharist a bare memo- 
rial, when he professedly contends for a real spiritual banquet, 

i 'Haud obscure eo tendit, ut so- institutum consilio putant, ut me- 

lum pro signo atque symbolo quo- moria magni sacrificii illius repe- 

dam [sacra coena] habeatur, quod tatur et renovetur, quod pro generis 

cum praesentia reali corporis ac human! peccatis Christus in cruce 

sanguinis Christi consistere nequit.' supremo numini intulit.' Moshem. 

Buddaeus, Observ. Sacr. torn. ii. p. in Notis, p. 10 ; confer pp. u, 

69. 12. 

r John vi. 63. ' Sapiunt haec scholam coetus 

8 ' Non obscure hie vir doctissi- illius, qui semetipsum Reformatum 

inus significat, eorum sese favere dici vult ; cui quidem s. coena nihil 

partibus, qui panem et vinum, qui- est, quam adumbratio beneficiorum 

bus frui datur illis qui ad sacrain moi-te et meritis Jesu Christi huma- 

coenam accedunt, symbola tantum no generi partorum. . . . Reformat! 

et imagines corporis et sanguiuis signis tantum et imaginibus sacri- 

Servatoris nostri esse ; ipsum vero ficii potiri suos opinantur in sacra 

hoc convivium ritum-esse eo unice coena.' Moshem. in Praef at. 

xi. as a Covenanting Rite. 297 

a real feasting upon all the benefits of the grand sacrifice ? Is 
partaking of the sacrifice nothing more than commemorating 1 
Or is the feast ever the less real, for being spiritual and heavenly, 
and reaching both to soul and body ; both to this world and the 
world to come 1 It is plain enough that Dr. Cudworth's notion 
is no way favourable to the figurists or memorialists, but much 
otherwise ; yea more so by far than the notion or notions which 
ai-e set up against it. For the certain truth is, (and why should 
it be any longer dissembled ?) that none give so great advantage 
to the figurists, as those that contend for oral manducation, and 
make the sacramental feast common both to worthy and un- 
worthy ; and who, in order to bring that about, interpret the 
words of the institution, as likewise i Cor. x. 16, &c., so as to 
exclude all intimation of benefits. Which is what the figurists 
most of all wish for : and if that be once granted them, they 
desire nothing further to cany their cause. 

But that I may not seem to lay a charge of this nature with- 
out sufficient grounds, let it but be considered how the last 
learned objector * to Dr. Cudworth's notion, labours to elude all 
Scripture proof of benefits, as drawn from i Cor. x. 16, only to 
make the sacramental feeding common both to good and bad, (as 
his hypothesis requires,) and so at length to resolve the Apostle's 
whole sense into this only, that all communicants equally receive 
what the Apostle there speaks of, and that the text is not to be 
understood of any spiritual union of good men, but of an external 
profession, or outward membership u : which, so far, is the very 

4 ' Hie monuisse satis erit, premi aliter quam de spiritual! conjuncti- 
ab eo vestigia praecipuorum Eefor- one fidelium cum Christo accipiant. 
mati coetus doctorum, &c. . . . velle Mihi vero expositio haec neque ver- 
enim eos notum est, ideo coenam bis Pauli, neque proposito ejus vide- 
a Servatore nostro potissimum esse tur esse cousentaneum . . . generatim 
institulam, ut sancti homines, qui et universe tradit, sacram coenam 
ad earn accedunt, cum Christo et communionem esse corporis et san- 
Servatore suo arctius conjungantur, guinis Christi ; nee Christianorum 
et beneficiorum hominibus ab eo aliquem ad sacrum hoc epulum 
partorum reddantur participes : nos venientium, cujuscunque demum sit 
vero repudiare, quia omnes homines, indolis, ab hac communione exclu- 
sive probi sint sive improbi, corporis dit.' Moshem. in Notis, p. 30. 
et sanguinis Domini vere fieri com- u ' Cum in sacra coena Christian! 
potes in sacra coena statuimus. compotes fiant corporis et sanguinis 
Quae quidem eorum sententia hand Domini, testenturque, quoties sacrum 
patitur, ut verba sancti hominis ilium cibum sumunt, sese inter se 

298 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 

same interpretation that the Socinians and other figurists warmly 
contend for. It is true, he supposes the Lord's natural body and 
blood to be really or locally present, as well as really received, 
(which the figurists deny,) but he supposes no spiritual benefits 
to be intimated in the text, because he supposes every communi- 
cant to receive all that is there spoken of, though the unworthy 
can receive no benefits. Thus the force of St. Paul's doctrine in 
that place (so far as concerns spiritual benefits) is eluded and 
frustrated. And when those prime texts are thus explained 
away, what other Scripture texts are there left sufficient to found 
the doctrine of spiritual benefits upon ? I know there is a distinc- 
tion, by the help of which good men may be presumed to receive 
benefits, and bad men detriment from the same things : but the 
question now is not whether good men may receive benefits, but 
whether these or any other texts positively teach that they 
infallibly do. If the words of institution, and those of St. Paul 
in i Cor. x., do not teach it, I must frankly profess, that I know 
not what other texts can be justly thought to do it without them. 
So that in the last result, for the sake of I know not what cor- 
poral or local presence, and oral manducation, the most important 
article of all, which concerns spiritual benefits, is left to shift for 
itself, divested of Scripture proof, and standing only on tradition, 
or the courtesy of the common adversaries. The Keformed 
churches (strictly so called) have been often, and very invidiously 
charged upon this head. But after all, they are the men who 
have formerly been, and still are, the true and faithful support- 
ers of the doctrine of spiritual benefits in the Eucharist x . They 
maintain it in a rational, consistent way, and, as becomes them, 
upon a Scripture foot ; grounding that doctrine chiefly on our 
Lord's words in the institution, and upon the words of St. Paul, 
i Cor. x. 16. If they who participate of Christ's body and blood, in 
the sense there intended, are really ingrafted into Christ, and are 
vital members of him, and one with him, then indeed the doctrine 
of spiritual graces or benefits rests upon firm ground : but if men 

conjunctos et unius sacrae civitatis de Coena Domini, c. iii. p. 352, 
membra ease.' Moshem. in Praefat. &c., alias p. 202, &c. ; item 405, 
* Compare Werenfels. Dissertat. alias 230. 

xr. as a Covenanting Rite. 299 

may participate of the same, in the sense there spoken of, how- 
ever unworthy, and in heart and life" alienated from Christ, and 
without any spiritual benefits at all ; then it plainly follows, that 
the communion of Christ's body and blood does not, in itself, 
imply any benefits at all, neither do those texts, nor perhaps any 
other, teach any such doctrine ; but the doctrine must be left to 
stand, as it can, either upon bare presumption, or at most upon 
the ti'adition of the Church. Let but any man look into the 
learned writings of Chemnitius, for example, or Gerhard, to see 
how they prove the beneficial nature of this Sacrament ; and 
there it will be found, that all, in a manner, resolves into this, 
that since Christ's body and blood is there given, all spiritual 
graces are by implication therewith given. Eight, if as many as 
receive the body and blood, in St. Paul's sense of communion, 
receive also the graces. But that they deny : for the unworthy 
communicants are supposed to receive the body, without the 
graces. Therefore there is no certain connection, in their way, 
between the body and the graces : therefore the main argument 
of all, on which the doctrine of such graces depends, is defeated ; 
and St. Paul's meaning in i Cor. x. amounts only to a com- 
memoration of Christ's death, or an outward profession of Christ's 
religion, which indeed is what the learned Mosheim (as before 
noted) resolves it into. From hence then let the indifferent 
readers now judge, whether the learned Cudworth, or his learned 
adversary, most favours the memorialists. One admits of bene- 
fits, and can prove them by St. Paul's words, justly interpreted ; 
the other admits them verbally, but in effect destroys them, by 
desti'oying the prime standing proofs upon which they rest. 

I thought it of some moment thus previously to remove a 
prejudice, wrongfully thrown upon Dr. Cudworth's notion in 
particular, and upon the Reformed Divines in general : and 
now I proceed to examine what his learned antagonist has 
further advanced in the way of argument. He has not indeed 
produced any new argument beyond what I have before men- 
tioned, and answered ; but he has pitched upon two of them, as 
most considerable, endeavouring to reinforce them in more 
pompous form. 

300 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 

1. The first is, that Christ had not yet offered himself a sacrifice, 
when he instituted the Eucharist : therefore the original Eucha- 
rist was not a feast consequent upon a sacrifice : therefore the 
subsequent Eucharists, being undoubtedly of the same kind with 
the first, ai*e not feasts upon a sacrifice y. I desire the reader to 
look back to the answer before given to the same objection, as 
proposed by a learned writer of our own z . All I shall here 
further add is, that many learned writers, ancient and modern, 
(as I shall have occasion to shew in my next chapter,) have 
taught, that Christ did really offer himself as a sacrifice, before 
his passion, and in his passion, and after ; and that those three 
several acts may be justly looked upon as one continued oblation. 
If this hypothesis be admitted, the edge of the objection is 
blunted, or broken at once, without more ado : or if it be 
rejected, yet the former answer will stand in full force. 

2. The second objection is, that the sacrifice of Christ corre- 
sponds to the sin offerings of old, (which had no feasts following,) 
and not to the peace offerings, Avhich had a . This was before 
objected by Pfaffius, and has been answered above 1 '. But I 
may here add, that St. Paul himself conceived that the sacrifice 
of Christ corresponded, some way or other, to the peace offerings, 
as appears by the parallel which he draws (i Cor. x.) between 
the peace offerings of the law and the Eucharist under the 
Gospel. If St. Paul, notwithstanding that he supposed the 
Eucharist to be a representation, memorial, and communion of 
our Lord's passion, yet conceived it analogous to the peace 
offerings, and to the feasts thereupon ; then certainly Dr. Cud- 
worth could not be much out of the way, in maintaining the 
same analogy, or in conceiving that the two notions of Christ's 
sacrifice, and of a sacrificial banquet, are consistent with each 
other, and agree well together. So that it is in vain to argue 
against Dr. Cudworth's notion from such topics as equally affect 
the Apostle himself. I have before examined this learned 
gentleman's account of St. Paul's reasoning in that chapter, and 
have shewn where it is defective : but be that as it will, it 

y Moshem. in Praefat. l See above, p. 293. Moshem. in Praefat. 
b See above, p. 295. c Above, pp. 202 207. 

xi. as a Covenanting Rite. 301 

cannot be denied that the Apostle is there speaking of the sacri- 
ficial feasts among the Jews, and that he judged the Eucharist 
to be a feast of like kind, bearing such resemblance to them, as 
was sufficient to support his argument, and to make good his 
parallel. So much in answer to the learned Mosheim, in behalf 
of our learned countryman. 

There is another very eminent Lutheran, who, as late as the 
year 1736, has given his judgment of Dr. Cud worth's notion, in 
terms of respect, and with his own approbation d , as to the main 
of the notion ; referring also to St. Paul, as affording sufficient 
warrant for it. 

My readers will, I hope, candidly excuse the excursion here 
made, in order to do justice to a very great man in the first 
place, and next, to the Reformed Divines in general, and at the 
same time to a very important article of religion, which concerns 
the spiritual benefits conferred in the Eucharist. Upon the whole, 
I take leave to say, that the objections raised against the 
notion espoused by Dr. Cudworth appear to be rather ingenious 
than solid, rather industriously sought, upon foreign considera- 
tions, than naturally arising from the subject-matter, and proving 
at length, not that there is anything faulty in his notion, but 
that there are faults in those other schemes, which stand in op- 
position to it, or comport not with it. The favourable reception 
which the notion had met with amongst our own Divines all 
along, till very lately, and also among very considerable Divines 
abroad, (both Lutheran and Reformed 6 ,) is a great commen- 
dation of it. Dr. Felling, in his treatise on the Sacramentj has 

d ' A sacrificio distingui solet epu- crificium, aut epulum de sacrificio 

lum sacrificiale, quale de oblatis olim dicere vellent. Nam Servator par- 

et Pagani et Israelitae instituere tern quasi victimae pro nobis ob- 

solebant. . . . Et hoc ipsum epulum latae, videlicet corpus et sanguinem 

sacrificium interdum appellatur, &c. suum, in hoc epulo nobis comeden- 

. . . Cum ejusmodi epu!o sacrificial! dam et bibendum exhibet, cum in- 

S. Eucharistia non incommode com- quit : Edite, hoc est corpus meum ; 

paraii potest. Praeivit Apostolus Bibite, hie est sanguis meus. Sed 

1 Cor. x. 14, et fusius id demon- pontificii non epulum de sacrificio, 

stravit Cudworthus in libro de Vera sed sacrificium verum, et proprie 

Notione Coenae Dominicae, Lond. dictum, esse contendunt.' Deyling. 

1642 et 1676. . . . Nos igitur inter- Observ. Miscellan. p. 294. 
cedere nollemus, si adversarii [viz. e See several of them numbered 

pontificii] hoc sensu s. coenam aa- up by Mosheim in Praefat. 

302 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 

made frequent use of it, and has enlarged upon it ; and may 
properly be consulted for those parts, wherein Cudworth him- 
self may seem to have been rather too concise and sparing of 

The notion then being sufficiently fixed and established, we 
have nothing now remaining, but to pursue it in its just conse- 
quences or inferences, for the supporting the point in hand. If 
the Eucharist be indeed a sacrificial feast, in such a sense as hath 
been mentioned, it will inevitably follow, that it is also a federal 
banquet, carrying in it the force of a compact or stipulation 
between God and man. This conclusion or corollary is drawn 
out at large by Dr. Cudworth in a distinct chapter f , and still 
more largely by other learned and judicious writers S and I 
need not repeat. Only because some exceptions are made to 
the evidence brought to prove that covenants were anciently 
struck and ratified by feasting together, I may briefly consider 
those exceptions. To the instance of Isaac so covenanting with 
Abimelech h , it is objected, that the covenant was subsequent to 
the feast', and therefore there was not a feast upon or after a 
covenant, as Dr. Cudworth's notion supposes. But then it must 
be observed, that Isaac and Abimelech met together in order to 
treat, and they settled the terms either at the feast or before it ; 
and what was done after, was no more than executing in form 
the things before concluded : besides that the whole may be 
considered as but one continued act of covenanting along with a 
feast. The next instance is that of Laban's covenanting with 
Jacob by a feast k : which is permitted to pass without any 
objection. A third is that of the Israelites victualling, and 
thereby covenanting with the Gibeonites ! : to which it is ob- 
jected, as in the first instance, that the covenant was subsequent m . 
But the truth is, the feast and the covenant were one entire 

* Cudworth, chap. vi. Bp. Patrick's Christian Sacrifice, p. 

R Felling on the Sacrament, chap. 31, &c. 
iii. iv. Compare Abp. Potter on h Gen. xxvi. 28 31. 
Church Government, p. 266. Vit- > Moshem. in Notis, p. 34. 
ringa, Observ. Sacr. torn. iii. p. 113. k Gen. xxxi. 43 55. 
Dodwell, One Altar, cap. vii. p. 165. J Josh. ix. 14, 15. 
Mede's Christian Sacrifice, p. 370. m Moshem. ibid. p. 34. 

xi. as a Covenanting Rite. 303 

transaction, one federal feasting, or festial covenanting. There 
are other the like slight exceptions made to other evidences n ; 
which might be as easily replied to, were it needful : but I for- 
bear, lest I should be tedious to the reader. 

The Socinians, in general, are adversaries to this federal doc- 
trine, as not consistent with their principles. Yet some of them 
unawares (such is the force of truth) have been observed to come 
into it, or to drop such expressions as appear tantamount. 
Crellius in particular (who was a great refiner of the Socinian 
system) scruples not to allow, that as in Circumcision formerly, 
so likewise in Baptism and in the Eucharist now, men bind 
themselves to the observance of the Divine law, as by a pledge 
of their obedience . Which, if admitted, does of course imply a 
reciprocal engagement, on God's part, to confer spiritual bless- 
ings and privileges : so that this concession does in plain con- 
sequence amount to declaring both Sacraments to be federal 
rites P. 

Socinus, being aware that the ancient sacrifices were federal 
rites, and that they were as seals and pledges of a covenant 
between God and the people ; and being aware also, that our 
Lord, in the institution of the Eucharist, had called the wine the 
blood of the covenant ; was distressed for a reason, why the 
Eucharist should not be esteemed a federal rite, as well as those 

n Moshem. p. 35, &c. catur nostrum illud votum maxi- 

' Adde quod Circumcisio sit sig- mum, quo nos vovimus in Christo 

num quoddam et tessera totius re- esse mansuros, utique in compage 

ligionis Judaicae in lege praescrip- corporis Christi : cujus rei sacra- 

tae, ita ut ea suscepta, veluti pignore mentum est, quod unus panis, 

se homines legi obstringant, non unum corpus multi sumus.' Aug. 

aliter quam Baptismus in Christi Epist. cxlix. p. 509. edit. Bened. 

nomine susceptus, vel etiam coenae It was binding themselves by so- 

Dominicae usus tessera quaedam est lemn vow or oath to abstain from 

et symbolum Christianismi.' Orel- all iniquity, and to adhere to godly 

lius in Gal. v. 3. living. Which amounted to a re- 

P The sense of the primitive newal of their Baptismal covenant. 

Church, with regard to the Eucha- Such a way of covenanting with 

rist as a covenanting rite, may be God by solemn vow, or oath, is 

learned from the famous passage of not without precedent under the 

Pliny quoted above, chap. i. p. 26. Old Testament. Deut. xxix. 12. 

To which agrees that passage of 2 Chron. xv. 14. Ezra x. 5. Kehem. 

St. Austin : ' Voventur omnia quae x. 29. And so God also covenanted 

offeruntur Deo, maxime sancti alta- by oath with men. Isaiah Ixii. 8. 
ris oblatio, quo sacrainento praedi- 

304 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 

sacrifices. At length he thought to account for it by saying, 
that to the blood of the sacrifices answers the real blood of Christ 
shed upon the cross, and not the wine in the Lord's Supper Q. 
The force of his reasoning stands only in the equivocal meaning 
of the word ' answers :' for, if he meant it of the antitype answer- 
ing to the type, it is true what he says, that our Lord's real blood 
answers, in that sense, to the blood of the sacrifices ; and it an- 
swers also to the wine, the symbol of it ; but if he meant it (as 
he ought to have meant it) of symbol answering to symbol, or of 
one typical service answering to another typical service, by way 
of analogy ; then it is plain, that the wine in the Eucharist so 
answers to the blood of the sacrifices, being that they are repre- 
sentations of the same thing, and are federal by the same virtue, 
and under the like views, and therefore fitly answer to each 
other, as analogous rites. 

Dr. Felling refutes the same objection thus : ' Though we 
grant what Socinus affirms, that it is not the wine, but the 
blood of Christ, which answers to the ancient sacrifices ; yet 
since the wine is the representation and communication of 
Christ's blood, we must conclude that it communicates those 
benefits for which that blood was shed ; and consequently that 
it seals that covenant to every faithful communicant in particu- 
lar, which the blood of Christ sealed to all mankind in general. 
And as it is true that our Saviour's passion did answer those 
sacrifices which were offered up of old ; so it is true also, that 
this holy banquet doth answer those sacrificial feasts which were 
used of old r .' The sum of all is this : the legal sacrifices were 
federal rites, binding legal stipulations directly, and indirectly 
evangelical stipulations also, shadowed out by the other : the 
Gospel Sacraments, which by St. Paul's account (in i Cor. x.) 
bear an analogy to those legal sacrifices, do likewise bind in a 
way proper to them, and as suits with the Gospel state : there- 
fore they do directly fix and ratify evangelical stipulations. 
These are properly federal rites of the Gospel state, as the other 
were properly federal rites of the legal economy. 

i Socin. deUsu et Fine Coenae, p. 46, alias 761. 
r Felling on the Lord's Supper, p. 106. 

xi. as a Covenanting Rite. 305 

It may be asked, why verbal professions, or repeated acknow- 
ledgments, may not amount to a renewal of a covenant, as much 
as a Sacrament 1 The reason is plain : verbal professions are not 
the federal form prescribed ; and besides, at the most, they 
amount only to verbal engagements, and that but on one side, 
and therefore express no mutual contract. They amount not to 
a communion of Christ's body, or a participation of his sacrifice : 
they are not the new covenant in Christ's blood : they are not 
drinking into one spirit nor pledges of our union in one body, like 
as the partaking of one loaf and of one cup is. In short, Sacra- 
ments are transactions of two parties, wherein God bears a share 
as well as man, and where the visible signs have an insepar- 
able conjunction with the invisible graces signified, when duly 
administered to persons worthy. Verbal professions, singly 
considered, come far short of what has been mentioned, and 
therefore cannot be presumed to amount to a renewal of a cove- 
nant, like the other. 

It may be pleaded perhaps, that repentance is the best renewal 
of our covenant, and is more properly so than any Sacrament 
can be. But, on the other hand, it is certain, that repentance 
is rather a qualification, on our part, for renewing, than a form 
or rite of renewal ; and it expresses only what man does, not 
what God does at the same time ; and therefore it amounts not 
to mutual contract. The terms of a covenant ought to be dis- 
tinguished from acts of covenanting, and the things stipulated 
from the stipulation itself, or from the federal forms. To be 
shoi't, repentance is properly the renewal of the man ; but the 
renewal of a covenant is quite another thing, and must include 
the reciprocal acts of both parties. It is very wrong to argue, 
that any act or performance of one party only can be federal, 
like a Sacrament which takes in both, and includes both part 
and counterpart. But the aim seems to be, to throw God's part 
out of the Sacraments, and then indeed they would not be federal 
rites, no, nor Sacraments, in any just sense. 

I know of no material objection further, so far as concerns 
the present article, and so I proceed to a new chapter. 

306 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 


The Service of the EUCHARIST considered in a Sacrificial View. 

THAT the Sacrament of the Eucharist, in whole or in part, 
in a sense proper or improper, is a sacrifice of the Christian 
Church, is a point agreed upon among all knowing and sober 
divines, Popish, Lutheran, or Reformed. But the Romanists 
have so often and so grievously abused the once innocent names 
of oblation, sacrifice, propitiation, &c., perverting them to an ill 
sense, and grafting false doctrine and false worship upon them, 
that the Protestants have been justly jealous of admitting those 
names, or scrupulously wary and reserved in the use of them. 

The general way, among both Lutheran and Reformed, has 
been to reject any proper propitiation, or proper sacrifice in 
the Eucharist ; admitting however of some kind of propitiation 
in a qualified sense, and of sacrifice also, but of a spiritual kind, 
and therefore styled improper, or metaphorical. Nevertheless 
Mr. Mede, a very learned and judicious Divine and Protestant, 
scrupled not to assert a proper sacrifice in the Eucharist, (as he 
termed it,) a material sacrifice, the sacrifice of bread and wine, 
analogous to the mincha of the old Law 8 . This doctrine he 
delivered in the college chapel, A.D. 1635, which was afterwards 
published with improvements, under the title of The Christian 
Sacrifice. In the year 1642, the no less learned Dr. Cudworth 
printed his well-known treatise on the same subject ; wherein 
he as plainly denies any proper or any material sacrifice in the 
Eucharist * ; but admits of a symbolical feast upon a sacrifice u , 
that is to say, upon the grand sacrifice itself commemorated 
under certain symbols. This appears to have been the prevailing 
doctrine of our Divines, both before and since. There can be no 
doubt of the current doctrine down to Mr. Mede : and as to 
what has most prevailed since, I need only refer to three very 
eminent Divines, who wrote in the years 1685, 1686, 1688 x . 

8 See Mede's Works, p. 355. ed. 3. Cudworth, ibid. pp. 21, 78. 

A.D. 1672. * Dr. Felling on the Sacrament, 

* Cudworth's True Notion of the pp. 41 47. Dr. Shar^ e, (afterwards 

Lord's Supper, chap. v. p. 77. Archbishop,) vol. vii. Serm. 2. Dr. 

xii. in a Sacrificial View. 307 

In the year 1702, the very pious and learned Dr. Grabe pub- 
lished his Irenaeus, and in his notes upon the author fell in 
with the sentiments of Mr, Mede, so far as concerns a proper 
and material sacrifice in the Eucharist Y : and after him, our 
incomparably learned and judicious Bishop Bull, in an English 
treatise, gave great countenance to the same z . 

Dr. Grabe's declaring for a proper sacrifice in the Eucharist, 
and at the same time censuring both Luther and Calvin, by 
name, for rejecting it, gave great alarm to the learned Pro- 
testants abroad, and excited several of them to re-examine the 
question about the eucharistical sacrifice. 

The first who appeared was the excellent Buddaeus a , (A. D. 
1705,) a Lutheran Divine of established character for learning, 
temper, and judgment ; though he happened to betray some 
precipitancy in this matter : he appeared much concerned at 
what Dr. Grabe had written on this argument, but misappre- 
hended him all the time, as was natural for him to do : for, 
imagining that Dr. Grabe had maintained a real presence in the 
Lutheran sense, and a proper sacrifice besides, the consequence 
was self-evident, that such a presence and sacrifice together could 
resolve into nothing else but the sacrifice of the mass. Therefore 
he treats Dr. Grabe all the way, as one that had asserted the 
popish sacrifice : and what confirmed him in the injui'ious sus- 
picion was, that some of the Jesuits b (whether ignorantly or 
artfully) had boasted of Dr. Grabe as a declared man on their 
side, against both Luther and Calvin. However, Buddaeus's 
dissertation on the subject is a well-penned performance, and 
may be of good service to every careful reader, for the light it 
gives into the main question. 

In the year 1706, a very learned Calvinist occasionally en- 
gaged in the same question about the sacrifice : not with any 

Payne's Disc, of the Sacrifice of the Pontificiae, Miscell. Sacr. torn. i. 

Mass^ pp. 4254- pp. 363- 

>' Grabe in Iren. lib. iv. cap. 32. b Meruoires pour 1'Histoire des 

p. 323. edit. Oxon. Sciences, &c. A.D. 1703. 

* Bishop Bull's Answer to the c Sam. Basnage, Annal. torn. i. 

Bishop of Meaux, pp. 18, 19. pp. 370 374. 

a Buddaeua de Origine Missae 

X 2 

308 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 

view to Dr. Grabe, (so far as appears,) but in opposition only to 
the Romanists. However, I thought it proper just to make 
mention of him here, as falling within the same time, and being 
a great master of ecclesiastical antiquity. 

Some time after, (A.D. 1709,) Ittigius, a learned Lutheran, 
took occasion to pass some strictures upon Dr. Grabe in that 
article d : then Deylingius e and Zornius f , learned Lutherans, 
and all still pursuing the same mistake which Buddaeus had 
fallen into. 

But in the year 1715, the acute and candid Pfaffius (a Lu- 
theran also) took care to do justice to Dr. Grabe's sentiments, 
(though not altogether approving them,) being so fair as to own, 
that Dr. Grabe's notion of the eucharistical sacrifice was nothing 
akin to the sacrifice of the mass?. Nevertheless others still 
went on in the first mistake : and among the rest, the celebrated 
Le Clerc h , and a greater man than he, Campegius Vitringa ' ; 
and another fine writer \ later than both ; all of them condemn- 
ing the doctrine, wrongfully, as popish. But it may be proper 
here to take notice, that the learned Deylingius, who had for- 
merly charged Dr. Grabe too hastily, has, upon better informa- 
tion, retracted that censure, in a book lately published ! : and 
the complaint now is, not that Dr. Grabe asserted the sacrifice 
of the mass, (which he heartily abhorred,) but that he rejected 
the real, local, or corporal presence 111 , such as the Papists or 
Lutherans contend for : in which most certainly he judged 

But before I close this brief historical view of that contro- 
versy, it may not be improper to observe how far the leafned 
Pfaffius was inclinable to concur with Dr. Grabe in this article. 
He allows that the ancients, by oblation and sacrifice, meant 
more than prayer, and that it is even ludicrous to pretend the 

d Ittigius, Histor. Eccles. primi h Clerici Histor. Eccl. p. 772. 

Saec. p. 204. * "Vitringa in Isa. torn. ii. p. 951. 

e Deylingius, Observ. Sacr. torn. k Moshem. A.D. 1733. in Praefat. 

i. n. 54. p. 262. ad Cudworth de Coena. 

f Zornius, Opuscul. Sacr. torn. i. ' Deylingius, Observat. Miscell. 

p. 732. p. 103. A.D. 1736. 

e Pfa'fius, Irenaei Fragm. Anec- m Vid. Deylingius, ibid. p. 77. 
dot. p. 106 &c., 499. 

xii. in a Sacrificial View. 309 

contrary". He acknowledges that they speak of an oblation of 
bread and wine , and that the Eucharist is a sacrifice of praise P, 
and propitiatory also in a qualified sober sense <i. In short, he 
seems almost to yield up everything that Dr. Grabe had con- 
tended for, excepting only the point of a proper or material sacri- 
fice : and he looked upon that as resolving at length into a kind 
of logomachy, a difference in words or names, arising chiefly from 
the difficulty of determining what a sacrifice properly means, and 
from the almost insuperable perplexities among learned men, 
about the ascertaining any precise definition of it r . I am per- 
suaded there is a good deal of truth in what that learned gentle- 
man has said, and that a great part of the debate, so warmly 
carried on a few years ago, was more about names than things. 

As the question arises chiefly out of what was taught by the 
ancient Fathers, it will be proper to inquire what they really 
meant by the word sacrifice, and in Avhat sense they applied 
that name to the Eucharist, in whole or in part. St. Austin, 
who well understood both what the Scripture and the Christian 
writers before him had taught, defines or describes a true sacri- 
fice, in the general, as follows : ' A true sacrifice is any work 
done to keep up our league of amity with God, referred to him 
as our sovereign good, in whom we may enjoy true felicity 8 .' 
I follow his sense, rather than the strict letter, to make it the 
clearer to an English reader. St. Austin here judged it neces- 
sary for every such good work to be performed with a view to 
God, to be referred to his glory ; otherwise it could not with 
any propriety be called a sacrifice to him : therefore even works 
of mercy done to man, out of compassion, tenderness, or 
humanity, though true sacrifices if considered as done with a 
view to God, would be no sacrifice at all, if they wanted that 
circumstance to recommend them *. From hence we may see 

n Pfaffius, Ii-enaei Fragm. Anec- opus quad agitur ut sancta socie- 

dot. p. 50. tate inhaereamus Deo, relatum sci- 

Ibid. pp. 254 274, 314, 344. licet ad ilium finem boni, quo vera- 
P Ibid. pp. 330, 338. citer beati esse possimus.' Augustin. 

1 Ibid. pp. 211, 229. de Civit. Dei, lib. x. cap. 6. p. 242. 
r Ibid, in Praefat. et pp. 344, 4 ' Misericordia verum sacrificium 

345. est. . . . Ipsa misericordia qua hornini 

8 ' Verum sacrificium est omne subvenitur, si propter Deum non fit, 

310 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 

what that Father's general notion of a true sacrifice was. He 
takes notice further, that what had been commonly called sacri- 
fice, is really nothing more than an outward sign, token, or 
symbol of true sacrifice u . The distinction here made may afford 
great light as to the meaning of the ancients, where they denomi- 
nate the Eucharist a sacrifice, or a true and perfect sacrifice. 
They meant, for the most part, that it was true and evangelical 
service, as opposed to legal : in that sense, the eucharistical 
service was itself true sacrifice, and properly our sacrifice. And 
if, over and above, the elements themselves, unconsecrated, were 
ever called a sacrifice, or sacrifices, the meaning still was, that 
the service was the sacrifice : but when the consecrated elements 
had that name, it was only a metonymy of the sign for the thing 
signified, as they represent, and in effect exhibit, the grand 
sacrifice of the cross. 

It is worth observing, that in Scripture style, whatever ex- 
hibits any advantage or blessing in larger measure, or in a more 
eminent degree, is denominated true, in opposition to other 
things which only appear to do the like, or do it but defectively x . 
In such a sense as that, the Gospel services are the true sacri- 
fices, called also under the Law sacrifices of righteousness y. 
I know not how it comes to pass, that moderns generally have 
reckoned all the spiritual sacrifices among the nominal, im- 
proper, metaphorical sacrifices ; whereas the ancients judged 
them to be the truest sacrifices of any, yea, and infinitely more 
excellent than the other. If it be said, that external, material, 

non est saerificium. . . . Sacrificium signum est.* Ibid. cap. 5. 

res divina est,' &c. Augustin. ibid. * See John i. 4, 9, 17; iv. 23, 

u ' Illud quod ab omnibus appel- 24 ; vi. 32; xv. I. Luke xvi. n. 

latur sacrificium, siguum est veri Heb. viii. 2; ix. n, 24. 

sacrificii.' Augustin. ibid. ' Nee > ' Vera sacrificia sunt ejusmodi 

quod ab antiquis patribus talia sacri- sacrificia, quae vere id habent quod 

ficia facta suut in victim's pecorum caetera habere videntur. Dicuntur 

(quod nunc Dei populus legit, non ilia, eodem loquendi modo, sacrificia 

facit) aliud intelligendum est, nisi justitiae, id est Ovatm a.\i)9iva\, sacri- 

rebus illis eas res fuisae sigmfieatas ficia vera. Intelligitur autem hac 

quae aguntur in nubis, in hoc ut phrasi totus cultus Novi Testa- 

adhaereamus Deo, et ad eundem menti.' Vitringa de vet. Synag. 

finem proximo consulamus. Sacri- p. 65. Cp. ejusd. Observat. Sacr. 

ficium ergo visibile, invisibilis sacri- torn. ii. p. 499, et in Isa. t-jm. ii. 

ficii sacramentum, id eat, sacrum pp. 56, 733 829. 

xii. in a Sacrifcial View. 3 11 

symbolical sacrifices had all along engrossed the name of sacri- 
fices, and therefore were the only sacrifices properly so called, as 
the custom of language is the rule of propriety ; it may be 
replied, on the other hand, that spiritual sacrifices really carry 
in them all that the other signify or point to, and so, upon the 
general reason of all sacrifice, have a just, or a more eminent 
title to that name : and this may be thought as good a rule of 
propriety, as the custom of language can be. Suppose, for 
instance, that sacrifice, in its general nature, means the making 
a present to the Divine Majesty, as Plato defines it z ; is not the 
presenting him with our prayers, praises, and good works, as 
properly making him a present, as the other 1 Therefore if the 
general reason or definition of sacrifice suits as properly (yea, 
and eminently) with spiritual sacrifices as with any other, I see 
not why they should not be esteemed proper sacrifices, as well 
as the other. However, since this would amount only to a strife 
about words, it is of no great moment, whether spiritual sacrifices 
be called proper or improper sacrifices, so long as they are 
allowed to be true and excellent, and as much to be preferred 
before the other, as substance before shadow, and truth before 
sign or figure. The ancients, I think, looked upon the spiritual 
sacrifices as true and proper sacrifices, and are so to be under- 
stood, whenever they apply the name of sacrifice to the service of 
the Eucharist. But to make it a material sacrifice would, in 
their account, have been degrading and vilifying it, reducing it 
to a legal ceremony, instead of a Gospel service. 

The service therefore of the Eucharist, on the foot of ancient 
Church language, is both a true and a proper sacrifice, (as I 
shall shew presently,) and the noblest that we are capable of 
offering, when considered as comprehending under it many true 
aiid evangelical sacrifices : i . The sacrifice of alms to the poor, 
and oblations to the Church ; which when religiously intended, 
and offered through Christ, is a Gospel sacrifice a . Not that the 
material offering is a sacrifice to God, for it goes entirely to the 

z OvKovf rb Bvfiv, ScaptiffQai tan a Philippians iv. 18. Hebrews xiii. 
rots <?<ny. Plato, Euthyphron. p. 16. Compare Acts x. 4. Ecclus. 

10. XXXV. 2. 

312 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 

use of man ; but the service is what God accepts. 2. The 
sacrifice of prayer, from a pure heart, is evangelical incensed 
3. The sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving to God the Father, 
through Christ Jesus our Lord, is another Gospel sacrifice c . 4. The 
sacrifice of a penitent and contrite heart, even under the Law, 
(and now much more under the Gospel, when explicitly offered 
through Christ,) was a sacrifice of the new covenant d : for the 
new covenant commenced from the time of the fall, and obtained 
under the Law, but couched under shadows and figures. 5. The 
sacrifice of ourselves, our souls and bodies, is another Gospel 
sacrifice 6 . 6. The offering up the mystical body of Christ, that 
is, his Church, is another Gospel sacrifice f : or rather, it is 
coincident with the former ; excepting that there persons are 
considered in their single capacity, and here collectively in a 
body. I take the thought from St. Austin S, who grounds it 
chiefly on i Cor. x. 17, and the texts belonging to the former 
article. 7. The offering up of true converts, or sincere penitents, 
to God, by their pastors, who have laboured successfully in the 
blessed work, is another very acceptable Gospel sacrifice h . 
8. The sacrifice of faith and hope, and self-humiliation, in com- 
memorating the grand sacrifice, and resting finally upon it, 
is another Gospel sacrifice \ and eminently proper to the 

These, I think, are all so many true sacrifices, and may all 
meet together in the one great complicated sacrifice of the Eu- 
charist. Into some one or more of these may be resolved (as I 
conceive) all that the ancients have ever taught of Christian 
sacrifices, or of the Eucharist under the name or notion of a true 
or proper sacrifice. Let it be supposed however for the present, 

b Revel, v. 8 ; viii* 3, 4. Com- f i Cor. x. 1 7. 

pare Psalm cxli. 2. Malach. i. n; e Augustin. de Civit. Dei, lib. x. 

iii. 4, 5. Hos. xiv. 2. Acts x. 4. cap. vi. p. 243 ; cap. xx. p. 256. 

Ecclua. xxxv. 2. Epist. lix. alias cxlix. p. 509. edit. 

c Heb. xiii. 15. i Pet. ii. 5, 9. Bened. 

Compare Psalm 1. 14, 15 ; Ixix. 31 ; h Rom. xv. 16. Phil. ii. 17. Com- 

cxvi. 1 7. pare Isa. Ixvi. 20, curn Notis Vitring. 

d Psalm iv. 5 ; Ii. 17. Isa. i. 16 ; p. 950. 

Ivii. 15. i This is not said in any single 

e Rom. xii. i. Phil. ii. 17. 2 Tim. text, but may be clearly collected 

iv, 6. from many compared. 

xii. in a Sacrificial View. 313 

in order to give the reader the clearer idea beforehand of what 
I intend presently to prove. In the meanwhile, supposing this 
account to be just, from hence may easily be understood how far 
the Eucharist is a commemorative sacrifice, or otherwise. If 
that phrase means a spiritual service of ours, commemorating 
the sacrifice of the cross, then it is justly styled a sacrifice com- 
memorative of a sacrifice, and in that sense a commemorative 
sacrifice : but if that phrase points only to the outward ele- 
ments representing the sacrifice made by Christ, then it means 
a sacrifice commemorated, or a representation and commemo- 
ration of a sacrifice k . 

From hence likewise may we understand in what sense the 
officiating authorized ministers perform the office of proper 
evangelical priests in this service. They do it three ways : 

1. As commemorating, in solemn form, the same sacrifice here 
below, which Christ our High Priest commemorates above. 

2. As handing up (if I may so speak) those prayers and those 
services of Christians to Christ our Lord, who as High Priest 
recommends the same in heaven to God the Father 1 . 3. As 
offering up to God all the faithful who are under their care and 
ministry, and who are sanctified by the Spirit m . In these three 
ways the Christian officers are priests, or liturgs, to very excel- 
lent purposes, far above the legal ones, in a sense worth the con- 
tending for, and worth the pursuing with the utmost zeal and 

Having thus far intimated beforehand what I apprehend to 
be in the main, or in the general, a just account of the eucha- 
ristical sacrifice, upon the principles laid down in Scripture, as 

k ' Nonne semel immolatus est nomina accipiunt. Sicut ergo, se- 

Christus in seipso ? Et tamen in cunduin quendam modum, sacra- 

sacramento non solum per omnes mentnm corporis Christi corpus 

paschae solennitates, sed omni die Christi est, sacramentum sanguinis 

populis iminolatur ; nee utique men- Christi sanguis Christi est ; ita 

titur qui, interrogatus, eum respon- sacramentum fidei fides est.' Au- 

derit immolari. Si enim sacramenta gustin. Epist. ad Bonifacium, xcviii. 

quandam similitudinem earum re- alias xxiii. p. 267. ed. Bened. 

rum, quarum sacramenta sunt, non ' Revel, viii. 4. Vid. Vitring. in 

haberent, omnino sacramenta non loc. 

essent : ex hac autem similitudine m Rom. xv. 16. 
plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum 

314 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 

interpreted by the ancients : I shall next proceed to examine 
the ancients one by one, in order to see whether this account 
tallies with what they have said upon this article. 

I shall begin with St. Barnabas, supposed, with some pro- 
bability, to have been the author of the Epistle bearing his name, 
penned about A.D. 71. This very early writer, taking notice of 
the difference between the Law and the Gospel, observes that 
Christ had abolished the legal sacrifices, to make way for an 
human oblation : which he explains soon after, by an humble 
and contrite heart, referring to Psalm li. 17. So by human 
oblation, he means the free-will offering of the heart, as opposed 
to the yoke of legal observances ; the offering up the whole inner 
man, instead of the outward superficial performances of the Law. 
Therefore the Christian sacrifice, as here described by our author, 
resolves into the 5th article of the account which I have given 
above. Mr. Dodwell renders the words of Barnabas thus : 
' These things therefore he has evacuated, that the new law of 
our Lord Jesus Christ, which is without any yoke of bondage, 
might bring in the mystical oblation P.' He conceived the 
original Greek words (which are lost) might have been XoytKj) 
Xarpet'a, reasonable service : which however is merely conjecture. 
But he understood the place of Christians offering themselves, 
their souls and bodies, instead of sacrificing beasts. Another 
learned man, who had an hypothesis to serve, understands by 
human oblation, an offering made with freedom ; and he inter- 
prets it of the voluntary oblations made by communicants at the 
altar, viz. the lay oblations <J. The interpretation appears some- 
what forced, and agrees not well with Barnabas's own explication 
superadded, concerning an humble and contrite heart ; unless we 
take in both : however, even upon that supposition, the Christian 
sacrifice here pointed to will be a spiritual sacrifice, or service, 
the sacrifice of charitable benevolence, and will fall under article 

' Haec ergo [sacriftcia] vacua liatum Deus non despicit.' Barnab. 

fecit, ut nova lex Domini nostri Epist. cap. ii. p. 57. 

Jesu Christi, quae sine jugo neces- P Dodwell of Incensing, p. 33 &c. 

sitatis est, humanam habeat obla- 1 Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, 

tionem . . . nobis enim dicit, Sacrifi- parti, p 333, alias 338. 
cium Deo, cor tribulatuin, et humi- 

xii. in a Sacrijicial Vieiv. 315 

the first, above mentioned. There have not been wanting some 
who would wrest the passage so far as to make it favour the 
sacrifice of the mass : but the learned Pfaffius r has abundantly 
confuted every pretence that way, and has also well defended the 
common construction ; which Menardus had before admitted, 
and which Dodwell also came into, and which I have here 
recommended. There is nothing more in Barnabas that relates 
at all to our purpose, and so we may pass on to other Christian 
writers in order. 

Clemens of Rome has been cited in a chapter above 8 , as 
speaking of the lay oblations brought to the altar, and of the 
sacerdotal oblation afterwards made of the same gifts, previously 
to the consecration. No doubt but such lay offerings amounted 
to spiritual sacrifice, being acceptable service under the Gospel ; 
and they fall under article the first, in the enumeration before 
given. I cannot repeat too often, that in such cases the service, 
the good work, the duty performed is properly the sacrifice, 
according to the definition of sacrifice in St. Austin* above cited, 
and according to plain good sense. When Cornelius's prayers 
and alms ascended up for a memorial, (a name alluding to the 
legal incense,) it was not his money, nor any material gifts, that 
ascended, or made the memorial ; but it was the piety, the mercy, 
the beneficence, the virtues of the man. Under the Gospel, God 
receives no material thing at all, to be consumed and spent in 
his own immediate service, and for his honour only : he receives 
no blood, no libation, no incense, no burnt offerings, no perfumes, 
as before. If he receives alms and oblations, (as in the Eucha- 
ristical service,) he receives them not as gifts to himself, to be 
consumed in his immediate service, but as gifts to be consecrated 
for the use of man, to whom they go. All that is material is 
laid out upon man only ; not upon God, as in the Jewish 
economy. But God receives, now under the Gospel, our religious 

r Pfaffius de Oblat. vet Eucharist, causto Dominicae passions, quod eo 

sect. xxii. p. 239, &c. tempore offert quisque pro peccatis 

8 See above, chap. i. p. 22. suis, quo ejusdem passionis fide de- 

* Omne opus, &c. every good work, dicatur, et Christianorum fidelium 

And it is observable that, conform- nomine Baptizatus imbuitur.' Au- 

ably to such definition, that Father gustin. ad Roman. Expos, cap. xix. 

makes Baptism a sacrifice : ' Holo- col. 937. torn. iii. 

3i 6 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 

services, our good works, our virtuous exercises, in the name 
of Christ, and these are our truly Christian and spiritual sacri- 
fices. In this view, the lay oblations, which Clemens refers to, 
were Christian sacrifices. So also were the sacerdotal services, 
referred to by the same Clemens ; though in a view somewhat 
different, and falling under a distinct branch of Gospel sacrifice, 
reducible to article the seventh in the foregoing recital. Those 
who endeavour to construe Clemens's 7rpo<r<opui and \(irovpyiai 
(oblations and sacerdotal ministrations) as favouring the sacrifice 
of the mass, run altogether wide of the truth ; as is plain from 
one single reason among many u , that all which Clemens speaks 
of was previous to the consecration. Those also who plead from 
thence for material oblations, as acceptable under the Gospel, 
mistake the case: for the material part (as before hinted) goes not 
to God, is not considered purely as a gift to him, (like the burnt 
offerings or incense under the Law, consumed in his immediate 
service,) but as a gift for the use of man ; and so nothing 
remains for God to accept of, as given to him, but the spiritual 
service ; and even that he accepts not of, unless it really answers 
its" name. So that it is plain that the New Testament admits of 
none but spiritual sacrifices ; because none else are now properly 
given to God, or accepted by him as so given. 

Justin Martyr, of the second century, is so clear and so express 
upon the subject of Gospel sacrifice, that one need not desire 
any fuller light than he will furnish us with. The sum of his 
doctrine is, that prayers and praises, and universal obedience, 
are the only Christian sacrifices : from whence it most evidently 
follows, that whenever he gives the name of oblation, or sacrifice, 
to the Eucharist, his whole meaning is, that it is a religious 
service comprehending prayers, praises, &c., and therefore has a 
just title to the name of Christian oblation and sacrifice. But 
let us examine the passages. 

He writes thus : 'We have been taught, that God has no need 
of any material oblation from men ; well knowing, that he is the 

u The reader may see that whole 45 49. Pfaffius de Oblat. vet. Euch. 
question discussed at large in Bud- pp. 254 269. 
daeus, Miscellan. Sacr. torn. i. pp. 

xii. in a Sacrificial View. 317 

giver of all things : but we are informed, and persuaded, and 
do believe, that he accepts those only who copy after his moral 
perfections, purity, righteousness, philanthropy x ,' &c. Here we 
may observe, that God accepts not, according to our author, any 
material oblation at all, considered as a gift to him, nor anything 
but what is spiritual, as all religious services, and all virtuous 
exercises really are : those are the Gospel oblations according to 
Justin, here and everywhere. A few pages after, he takes notice, 
' that God has no need of blood, libations, or incense, but that 
the Christian manner was, to offer him prayers and thanksgivings 
for all the blessings they enjoy, to the utmost of their power : 
that the only way of paying him honour suitable, was not to con- 
sume by fire what he had given for our sustenance, but to spend 
it upon ourselves, and upon the poor, and to render him the 
tribute of our grateful hymns and praises y,' &c. 

Here we may note how exactly he points out the difference 
between other sacrifices (Pagan or Jewish) and the sacrifices of 
the Gospel. In those there was something spent, as it were, 
immediately upon God, entirely lost, wasted, consumed, because 
considered as a gift to God only ; which is the proper notion of 
a material sacrifice : but in these, nothing is entirely spent, or 
consumed, but all goes to the use of man ; only the praise, the 
glory, the tribute of homage and service, that is given to God, 
and that he accepts, as a proper sacrifice, and as mo^t suitable to 
his Divine Majesty. Not that he needs even these, or can be 
benefited by them : but he takes delight in the exercise of his 
own philanthropy, which has so much the larger field to move 
in, according as his creatures render themselves fit objects of it 
by acts of religion and virtue. But I proceed with our author. 

i*i/ 1 w w, ^M.WW, ^w-iju-ui/ju-cfufij vvvyj'fjvu I/CT/J-J KU.I TOti TOvyMFVf* Tipou<ptfJtiy } tKtiyifj 

/cat OLKo,LO(TvvT]v ) Kal <^)iA.ctt'^pciJ7rtcEi' 5 /cal vxttpi(TTovs OVTO.S 8ta Ao*you irou- 

5o-a oie?a 0y eVri. Just. Mart. ?ras /cat vpvovs irtpirew. K.T.\. Just. 

Apol. i. p. 14. edit. Lond. Mart. ibid. p. 19. 

31 8 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 

In another place he expressly teaches, that 'prayers and 
thanksgivings, made by them that are worthy, are the only per- 
fect and acceptable sacrifices;' adding, that 'those only are 
offered in the eucharistical commemoration 2 .' It is observable, 
that by the restriction to the worthy, he supposes a good life to 
go along with prayers and praises to make them acceptable 
sacrifice, conformably to what he had before taught, as above 
recited. Indeed, prayers and praises are most directly, imme- 
diately, emphatically sacrifice, as a tribute offered to God only : 
which is the reason why Justin and other Fathers speak of 
them in the first place, as the proper or primary sacrifices of 
Christians. Obedience is sacrifice also, as it respects God ; but 
it may have another aspect towards ourselves, or other men, 
and therefore is not so directly a sacrifice to God alone. This 
distinction is well illustrated by a judicious Divine of our 
own a , whose words I may here borrow : ' The sacrifice of 
obedience is metaphorical : that is, God accepts it as well as if 
it had been a sacrifice ; that is, something given to himself : 
but the sacrifice of praise is proper, without a metaphor b . The 
nature of it accomplished by offering something to God, in 
acknowledgment of him. . . . The honour which God receives 
from our obedience, differs from that of a sacrifice ; for that is 
only of consequence, and by argumentation : that is, it suits 
with the nature and will of God ; as we say, good servants are 
an honour to their masters, by reflection. But the honour by 
sacrifice is of direct and special intendment : it hath no other 
use, and is a distinct virtue from all other acts of obedience, and 
of a different obligation Though God hath the honour of 

z "OTI /j.fv ovv Ka\ tii^al KO.} tvx_api- every spiritual sacrifice a metapho- 

ffriatt virb T>V o|ieov yiv6/j.fvat, rt\fiai rical sacrifice : for he admits of 

ft.6vai Koi tvapevToi tlffi r<p f<p 6u- prayers and praises, and the like 

ff'tat, Kal avr6s <p7?/u. Tavra yap nfoa religious services, as true and pro- 

Ko.1 Xpiffnavol irapt\a./3ov iroteiv, KOI per sacrifices. I conceive further, 

fir' ava/jLv-fiffet 8e rrjs rpo^fjr avrtav that even obedience, formally con- 

i;/)os Tf Kol vpyas. Justin. Dial, sidered as respecting God, and as 

p. 387. a tribute offered to him, (though it 

a Bishop Lany's Sermon on Heb. has other views besides, in which it 

xiii. 15. pp. 30 32. is no sacrifice at all,) is as properly 

b Note, this very acute and know- sacrifice as the other : and so judged 

ing Divine had not learned to call St. Austin above cited. 

xii. in a Sacrificial View. 319 

obedience and a virtuous life; if we deny him the honour of a 
sacrifice besides, we rob him of his due, and a greater sacrilege 
we cannot commit. . . . This is robbing God of the service itself, 
to which the other, dedicated for his service, are but accessary.' 
Thus far Bishop Lany to the point in hand. I return to Justin 

We have seen how uniform and constant this early Christian 
writer was, with respect to the general doctrine concerning 
Gospel sacrifices, as being spiritual sacrifices, and no other. 
Nothing more remains, but to consider how to reconcile that 
general doctrine with the particular doctrine taught by the same 
writer concerning the Eucharist, as a sacrifice. He makes 
mention of the legal offering of fine flour, or meal offering, as a 
type of the bread of the Eucharist c : and a little after, citing 
a noted place of the Prophet Malachi, he interprets the pure 
offering, the mincha, or bread-offering there predicted, of the 
bread eucharistical, and likewise of wine d , denominating them, as 
it seems, the sacrifices offered by us Gentile Christians. Does not 
all this look very like the admitting of material sacrifices under 
the Gospel 1 And how then could he consistently elsewhere 
exclude all material oblations, and admit none but spiritual 
sacrifices as belonging to the Christian state 1 Mr. Pfaffius, being 
aware of the appearing difficulty, cuts the knot, instead of un- 
tying it, and charges the author with saying and unsaying e : 
which perhaps was not respectful enough towards his author, nor 
prudent for his own cause, unless the case had been desperate, 
which he had no reason to suspect, so far as I apprehend. He 
undertakes afterwards to sum up Justin's sentiments on this 
head, and does it in a manner somewhat perplexed, to this 
effect : ' That the New Testament admits of no sacrifices but 
prayers, praises, and thanksgivings : but however, if it does 
admit of anything corresponding, or similar to the legal obla- 
tions, it is that of the oblation of bread and wine in the 

c Justin. Mart. Dial. p. 220. tvxapiffrias irpo\fyti r6re. Justin. 

d Tltpl 8e rS>v iv itav-rl r6Trcf v<p' ibid. 

iifjilav T<av tQvSiv Trpoff<f>fpofj.fviav a.vT(f e Pfaffius de Oblat. vet. Eucharist. 

SvaiSiv, TowrtffTi TOV &prov rrjs tvxcipi- pp. 270, 272. 
ffrictt, Kal rov Trorijplou o/joiut TTJJ 

320 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 

Eucharist f .' This is leaving the readers much in the dark, and 
his author to shift for sense and consistency. At the best, it is 
dismissing the evidence as doubtful, not determinate enough to 
give reasonable satisfaction. 

Mr. Dodwell's account of Justin in this article is no clearer 
than the former. He takes notice, that his Father ' allows no 
other sacrifice but that of prayer and Eucharist ;' he should 
have said, thanksgiving : and soon after he adds in the same 
page ; ' elsewhere he owns no acceptable sacrifice under the 
Gospel, but the Eucharist; in opposition to the Jewish sacrifices, 
which were consumed by fire, and which were confined to 
Jerusalem .' Still, here is no account given how Justin could 
reject all material sacrifice, and yet consistently admit of the 
Eucharist as a sacrifice, if that be a material and not a spiritual 
oblation. The most that Mr. Dodwell's solution can amount to is, 
that Justin did not absolutely reject material sacrifices, provided 
they were not to be consumed by fire, or provided (as he hints in 
another work ) that they are but purely eucharistical. But this 
solution will never account for Justin's so expressly and fully ex- 
cluding all material oblations, and so particularly restraining the 
notion of Gospel sacrifices to prayers, praises, and good works. 

Some learned men think that a material sacrifice may yet be 
called a rational and spiritual sacrifice J : and therefore, though 
the Fathers do expressly reject material sacrifices, they mean 
only sacrifices of a certain kind; and though they admit none 
but spiritual sacrifices, they might yet tacitly except such 
material sacrifices as are spiritual also. But this appears to be 
a very harsh solution, and such as would go near to confound 
all language. However, most certainly, it ought never to be 
admitted, if any clearer or juster solution can be thought on, 
as I am persuaded there may. 

1 ' Ita nempe secum statuit vir posita, precibusque juxta rnandatum 

sanctus, nulla esse in Novo Testa- Christ! Deo oblata, in Sacramentum 

mento sacrificia, quam laudes, gra- corporis sanguinisque Dominici con- 

tiarum actiones, et. preces ; si quid secrentur.' Pfaffius, ibid. p. 274. 
tamen sit quod cum oblationibus s Dodwell of Incensing, p. 46. 
Veteris Testament! conferri queat, h Dodwell's Oue Altar, pp. 203,204. 
esse panem vinumque Euchanstiae, ' Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, part 

quae altari, seu mensae sacrae im- i. p. 18, &c. 

xii. in a Sacrificial View. 321 

Justin's principles, if rightly considered, hang well together, 
and are all of a piece. He rejects all material sacrifices abso- 
lutely : and though the Eucharist be a sacrifice, according to 
him, yet it is not the matter of it, viz. the bread and wine, that 
is properly the sacrifice, but it is the service only, and that is a 
spiritual sacrifice. Alms are a Gospel sacrifice, according to 
St. Paul : not the material alms, but the exercise of charity, that 
is the sacrifice. In like manner, the Eucharist is a Gospel 
saci-ifice. Not the material symbols, but the service, consisting 
of a prayer, praise, contrite hearts, self-humiliation, &c. Well, 
but may not the like be said of all the legal sacrifices, that there 
also the service was distinct from the matter, and so those also 
were spiritual sacrifices 1 No : the circumstances were widely 
different. In the legal sacrifices, either the whole or some part 
of the offering was directly given to God k, and either consumed 
by fire, or poured forth, never returaing to the use of man : and 
thereupon was founded the gross notion, of which God by his 
Prophets more than once complains 1, as if the Deity had need 
of such things, or took delight in them. But now, under the 
Gospel, nothing is so given to God, nothing consumed in his 
immediate service : we present his gifts and his creatures before 
him, and we take them back again for the use of ourselves and 
of our brethren. All that we really give up to God as his 
tribute, are our thanks, our praises, our acknowledgments, our 
homage, our selves, our souls and bodies ; which is all spiritual 
sacrifice, purely spiritual : and herein lies the main difference 
between the Law and the Gospel m . We have no material 
sacrifices at all. The matter of the Eucharist is sacramental, and 
the bread and wine are signs : yea, signs of a sacrifice, that is of 

k Some have thought the paschal think that the inwards, or fat, was 
sacrifice to make an exception, be- to be burnt upon the altar. See 
cause it was all to be eaten. But Reland, Antiq. Hebr. p. 383. Dey- 
it is certain that one part, viz. the lingius, Observ. Sacr. torn. iii. p. 
blood, was to be poured forth, and 332. Cudworth on the Lord's Sup- 
sprinkled, 2 Chron. xxx. 16 ; xxxv. per, p. 3. fol. ed. 
n, yea and offered unto God, Exod. ' Psalm 1. 12, 13. Isaiah i. n. 
xxiii. 18; xxxiv. 25, as belonging Mic. vi. 6, 7. 

of right to him t and those who are m See Mr. Lewis's Answer to 

best skilled in Jewish antiquities, Unbloody Sacrifice, pp. 2, 5, n. 


322 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 

the sacrifice of the cross : but as to any sacrifice of ours, it lies 
entirely in the service we perform, and in the qualifications or 
dispositions which we bring, which are all so much spiritual 
oblation, or spiritual sacrifice, and nothing else. 

From hence may be perceived how consistent and uniform 
this early Father was in his whole doctrine on that head. He 
expressed himself very accurately, when, speaking of spiritual 
and perfect sacrifices, he said, that they were what Christians 
offered over, or upon the eucharistical commemoration n : that is, 
they spiritually sacrificed in the service of the Eucharist. They 
did not make the material elements their sacrifice, but the signs 
only of a greater. Their service they offered up to God as his 
tribute ; but the elements they took entirely to themselves. When 
he speaks of the sacrifices of bread and wine , he may reasonably 
be understood to mean, the spiritual sacrifices of lauds, or of 
charity, which went along with the solemn feasting upon the 
bread and wine ; and not that the elements themselves were sa- 
crifices P. Upon the whole therefore, I take this blessed martyr 
to have been consistent throughout in his doctrine of spiritual 
sacrifices, as being the only sacrifices prescribed, or allowed by 
the Gospel. And if he judged the Eucharist to be (as indeed 
he did) a most acceptable sacrifice, it was because he supposed 
it to comprise many sacrifices in one ; a right faith, and clean 
heart, and devout affections, breaking forth in fervent prayers, 
praises, and thanksgivings unto God, and charitable contributions 
to the brethren. 

n Tavra -yap fj.6va Kal XpiffTtavol xxiv. 7, a type of the Eucharist. 

irape\afiov itoiflv Kal fir' ava/j.vfiffft But it is observable, that the show- 

8 rrjs rpotyris avriav i)pas re Ka\ bread was not the memorial; but 

vypas. Dial. p. 387. the incense burnt upon it, that was 

Qvo-ias . . . eVl rfj fvx.apiffTta TOV the memorial, as the text expressly 

&PTOV Kal TOV iroTTjplov . . . yivo/jifvas. says. Now it is well known, that 

Dial. p. 386. prayers, lauds, &c. are the evan- 

npoff^fpof^fvuv avT<f 6v<n>i>, rov- gelical incense, succeeding in the 

TfffTi rov &prov TTJS evxapiffTtas Kal room of the legal : therefore, to 

TOV iroTypiov. Dial. p. 22O. make everything correspond, the 

P It may be suggested (see John- spiritual services of the Eucharist 

son, part i. p. 271) that the word are properly our memorial, our in- 

avdfivriffis, memorial, was used in cense, and not the material ele- 

relation to the show-bread, Levit. ments. 

XII. in a Sacrificial View. 323 

Athenagoras may come next, who has not much to our pur- 
pose : but yet something lie has. He observes, that ' God needs 
no blood, nor fat, nor sweet scents of flowers, nor incense, being 
himself the most delightful perfume : but the noblest sacrifice 
in his sight, is to understand his works and ways, and to lift 
up holy hands to him q.' A little after he adds, ' What should 
I do Avith burnt offerings, which God has no need of 1 ? But it is 
meet to offer him an unbloody sacrifice, and to bring him a 
rational service 1 ".' Here we see what the proper Christian sacri- 
fices are, namely, the spiritual sacrifices of devout prayers, and 
obedience of heart and life. The service is, with this writer, the 
sacrifice. He takes notice of God's not needing burnt offerings, 
and the like. All material sacrifices considered as gifts to God, 
were apt to insinuate some such idea to weak minds : but the 
spiritual services do not. In our eucharistical solemnity we 
consider not the elements, when presented before God, as pro- 
perly our gifts to him, but as his gifts to us s ; which, we pray, 
may be consecrated to our spiritual uses. We pay our acknow- 
ledgments for them at the same time : and that makes one part, 
the smallest part, of our spiritual sacrifice, or service, in that 
solemnity. It may be worth noting, that here in Athenagoras 
we find the first mention of unbloody sacrifice, which he makes 
equivalent to reasonable service : and he applies it not particu- 
larly to the Eucharist, but to spiritual sacrifices at large. An 
argument, that when it came afterwards to be applied to the 
Eucharist, it still carried the same meaning, and was chosen with 
a view to the spiritual services contained in it, and not to the 
material oblation, or oblations, considered as such. 

Irenaeus, of the same time, will afford us still greater light, 
with regard to the point in hand. He is very large and diffuse 

i iicrio av-rw fj.fyia"rt], &r yivdiffKca- 8 Hence came the usual phrase, 

p.fv rls ftTftvf, K. T. \., Kal frra'pwutv so frequent in liturgic Offices, ra 

otriovs x f ?P as avTy. Athenag. pp. era K Ttav <rS>v Sdpwv crot irpoff<pfpo- 

48, 49. ed. Oxon. ptv, We present unto thee the 

r T 8* /uoj 6\oKavTu>ffav, 5>v ^ things that are thine out of thy 

Sfirai 6 &t6s ; Kal roi vpoa<f>fpfiv own gifts : that is. by way of 

Sfov avai^aK-rov Bvcriav, Ka\ TTJV \oyi- acknowledgment. See the testi- 

K.TIV irpoffdyftv \a.rptiav. Athenag. monies collected in Deylingius, Ob- 

p. 49. servat. Miscellan. pp. 201, 312. 

T 2 

334 The Eucharist considered CIJAP. 

upon the distinction between the typical sacrifices of the Law *, 
and the true sacrifices of the Gospel". He seems to mean by 
typical there the same that St. Austin, before cited, meant by 
signs. Those external sacrifices were symbols, tokens, pledges of 
the true homage, or true sacrifice ; which Irenaeus interprets of 
a contrite heart, faith, obedience, righteousness x , &c. referring to 
several texts y of the Old Testament and New, which recommend 
true goodness as the acceptable sacrifice. He understands the 
Gospel incense, spoken of in Malachi 2 , of the prayers of the 
saints a , according to Rev. v. 8. He makes mention also of an 
altar in heaven, to which the prayers and oblations of the Church 
are supposed to ascend, and on which they are conceived to be 
offered by our great High Priest to God the Father b . The 
thought, very probably, was taken from the golden altar men- 
tioned in the Apocalypse c , and represented as bearing the mys- 
tical incense. The notion of a mystical altar in heaven became 
very frequent in the Christian writers aTter Irenaeus d , and 
was in process of time taken into most of the old Liturgies, 
Greek, Latin, and Oriental; as is well known to as many as are 
at all conversant in them. The notion was not new : for the 
Old Testament speaks of prayers, as ' coming up to God's holy 

* ' Per sAcrificia autem et reliquas a ' In omni loco incensum offertur 
typicaa observantias, putantes propi- nomini meo, et saerificium purum. 
tiari Deum, dicebat eis Samuel/ &c. Incensa autem Joannes in Apo- 
Iren. lib. iv. cap. 17. p. 247. edit, calypsi orationes esse ait sancto- 
Bened. rjun.' Iren. 1. iv. c. 17. p. 249. 

u ' Verum saerificium insinuans, b ' Est ergo altare in caelis (illic 

quodofferentespropitiabunturDeum, enim preces nostrae et oblationes 

ut ab eo vitam percipiant : quemad- diriguntur) et templum ; quemad- 

modum alibi ait ; Sacriticium Deo modum Joannes in Apocalypsi ait, 

cor tribulatum, odor suavitatis Deo, Et apertum est tenjpium Dei.' Iren. 

cor clarificans cum qui plasma vit.' ibid. 

Ibid. p. 248. c Rev. viii. 3, 5. Vid. Vitringa 

* ' Non sacrificia et bolocausto- in loc. Dodwell on Incensing, pp. 
mata quaerebat ab eis Deus, sed 39 44. 

fidem, et obedientiarn, et justitiam, d Clemens Alex. p. 209. Origen. 

propter illorum salutem.' Ibid. p. Horn, in Joan. xvii. p. 438. Gregor. 

249. Nazianz. vol. i. pp. 31, 484, 692. 

y i Sam. xv. 22. Psalm 1. 14; Chrysostom. in Heb. Horn. xi. p. 

li. 17. Isa. i. 16, 17. Jerem. 807. Cyrill. Alex, de Adorat. lib. 

vii. 22, 23. Hos. vi. 6. Philip, iv. ix. p. 310. Apostol. Constitut. lib. 

18. viii. cap. 13. Augustin. Serm. 351. 

* Malach. i. II. de Poeiiit. p. 1357. torn. v. 

xii. in a Sacrificial View. 325 

dwelling-place, even to heaven 6 :' and the New Testament fol- 
lows the same figure of speech, applying it both to prayers and 
alms-deeds, in the case of Cornelius f . 

Irenaeus, as I have observed, understood the incense, mentioned 
in the Prophet, of the evangelical sacrifice of prayer : but then 
it is to be further noted, that he distinguished between the in- 
cense and the pure offering, and so understood the latter of 
something else. He understood it of the alms or oblations that 
went along with the prayers ; referring to St. Paul's doctrine, in 
Phil. iv. 1 8, which recommends charitable contributions, as 'an 
odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to 
God;' as also to Proverbs xix. 17, 'He that hath pity upon 
the poor lendeth unto the Lord e.' Such were the pure offerings 
of the Church, in Irenaeus's account ; and they were spiritual 
sacrifices : for it is the service, not the material offering, which 
God accepts in such cases, as Irenaeus himself has plainly inti- 
mated n . It must be owned that Irenaeus does speak of the 
eucharistical oblations under the notion of presents brought to 
the altar, offered up to God, for the agnizing him as Creator of 
the world, and as the giver of all good things, and for a testimony 
of our love and gratitude towards him on that score i. This he 
calls a pure sacrifice k , present, offering, and the like : and since 
the bread and wine so offered were certainly material, how shall 

e 2 Chron. xxx. 27. Compare primitias suorum munerum in Novo 

Tobit iii. 16 ; xii. 12. Wisd. ix. 8. Testamento,' &c. Irenaeus, lib. iv. 

f Acts x. 4. cap. 17. p. 249. 

e Irenaeus, lib. iv. cap. 18. p. 251. k ' Ecclesiae oblatio, quam Do- 

u ' Qui enim nullius indigens est minus docuit offerri in universo 

Deus, in se assumit bonas opera- mundo, purum sacrificium reputa- 

tiones nostras, ad hoc ut praestet turn est apud Deum, et acceptum 

nobis retributionem bonorum &uo- est ei : non quod iridigeat a nobis 

rum.' Iren. ibid. p. 251. sacrificium, sed quoniam is qui of- 

' ' Suis discipulis dans eonsilium, fert, glorificatur ipse in eo quod 

primitias Deo offerre ex suis crea- offert, si acceptetur munus ejus. 

turis, non quasi indigenti, sed ut Per munus enim erga regem et 

ipsi ncc infructuosi nee ingrati sint, honos et affectio ostenditur : quod 

eum qui ex creatura panis est ac- in omni simplicitate et innocentia 

cepit, et gratias egit, &c. . . . Novi Dominus volens nos ofFerre, praedi- 

Testamenti novam docuit oblatio- cavit, dicens, Cum igitur offers mu- 

iiem, quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis nus tuum ad altare,' &c. Irenaeus, 

accipiens, in universo mundo offert lib. iv. cap. 1 8. p. 250. 
Deo, ei qui alimenta nobis praestat, 

326 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 

we distinguish the sacrifice he speaks of from a material sacrifice, 
or how can we call it a spiritual sacrifice \ A learned foreigner, 
being aware of the seeming repugnancy, has endeavoured to re- 
concile the author to himself, by saying, that the eucharistical 
oblation may still be reckoned a spiritual sacrifice, on account of 
the prayers, lauds, and offerings going along with it, which are 
spiritual services 1 . Another learned gentleman observes, that 
according to Irenaeus, the very life and soul .of the new oblation 
rests in the prayers by which it is offered up, and which finish or 
perfect the spiritual oblation m . The solution appears to be just, 
so far as it goes : but I would take leave to add to it, that the 
material offering, in this case, is not properly a present made to 
God, though brought before him : for it is not consumed (like a 
burnt offering) in God's immediate service, nor any part of it, 
but it goes entire to the use of man, not so much as any particle 
of it separated for God's portion, as in the legal sacrifices 11 . 
Therefore the material offering is not the sacrifice ; but the com- 
municant's agnizing the Creator by it ; that is properly sacrifice, 
and spiritual sacrifice, of the same nature with lauds. I may 
add further, that those eucharistical oblations were, in Irenaeus'e 
account, contributions to the Church and to the poor, as is plain 
by his referring to Prov. xix. 17, and Phil. iv. 18, which I noted 
before : and therefore he looked upon them as evangelical and 
spiritual sacrifices, falling under article the first of the recital 
given above. For it is not the matter of the contributions which 
constitutes the sacrifice, but it is the exercise of benevolence, and 
that is spiritual, and what God accepts. Under the Law, God 

1 ' Non satis sibi constare videtur merer!.' Buddaeus, Miscellan. Sacr. 

Irenaeus, qui de sacrifices spiritu- torn. i. pp. 59, 60. 
alibus antea locutus erat, deque m ' Ex quibus patet animam ob- 

iis acceperat vaticinium Malachiae, lationis novae, quae in Nov. Test, 

quod nunc contra ad oblationes istas juxta Irenaeum fit, et a Christo in- 

eucharisticas trahere videtur. At stituta est, esse preces queis dona 

bene cuncta se habent, si observe- offeruntur. . . . Accedentibus preci- 

mus et ipsam Eucharistiam ratione bus, quibus nomen Dei glorificatur, 

precum et gratiarum actionis, quae ipsi gratiae redduntur, donorumque 

earn comitari solet, et oblationes sauctificatio expetitur, perficitur uti- 

quoque istas, quas cum Eucharistia que spiritualis ilia atque eucharistica 

conjungere moris erat, suum itidem oblatio.' Pfaffius in Irenaei Fragm. 

locum inter sacrificia spiritualia pro- p. 57. " See above, p. 136. 

xii. in a Sacrificial View. 32 7 

accepted the external sacrifice, the material offering, as to legal 
effect : but under the Gospel, he accepts of nothing as to any 
salutary effect at all, but the spiritual service. This is the new 
oblation, the only one that is any way acceptable under the 
Gospel, being made ' in spirit and in truth.' 

Some perhaps may object, that such spiritual oblation cannot 
justly be called new, since it was mentioned by the Prophets, and 
is as old as David at least, who speaks of the sacrifice of a con- 
trite heai-t, and the like . All which is very certain, but foreign 
to the point in hand. For let it be considered, i. That the new 
covenant is really as old as Adam, and yet is justly called new. 
2. That though spiritual sacrifices were always the most accept- 
able sacrifices, yet God did accept even of material sacrifices, 
under the Mosaical economy, as to legal effect ; and so it was a 
new thing to put an end to such legal ordinances. 3. That when 
spiritual sacrifices obtained (as they all along did) under the 
Law, yet they obtained under veils, covers, or symbols ; and so it 
was a new thing to accept of them, under the Gospel, stripped of 
all their covers and external signatures. 4. The Gospel sacrifices 
are offei-ed in, by, and through Christ, expressly and explicitly ; 
and so the spiritual sacrifices of the Gospel are offered in a new 
way, and under a new form P. These considerations appear 
sufficient to justify Irenaeus's calling the Christian oblation a 
new oblation : or it may be added, that new light, new force 
and new degrees of perfection have been brought in by the 
Gospel to every part or branch both of speculative and practical 

I pass on to Clemens of Alexandria. He maintains constantly, 

See Johnson's Unbloody Sacri- by him, in Christ's name. Hitherto 

fice, part i. p. 264, alias 268. ye have asked nothing in my name 

P ' By him we are to offer : it is says our Saviour ; but hereafter his 

bin merit and mediation that crowns name will give virtue and efficacy to 

the sacrifice. .. .This by him gives all our services: and therefore, to 

the characteristical difference of the gain so gracious an advocate with 

Christian sacrifice from all others : the Father, our prayers and suppli- 

for, otherwise, the sacrifice of praise cations are in the Liturgy offered 

was common to all times before and up in his name, concluding always, 

under the Law. You find in many by the merits of our Lord Jesus 

Psalms a sacrifice of praise and Christ.' Bishop Lany's Sermon on 

thanksgiving, but in none of them Heb. xiii. 15. pp. 13, 14. 

328 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 

under some variety of expression, that spiritual sacrifices are 
the only Christian sacrifices. To the question, what sacrifice 
is most acceptable to Godl he makes answer, in the words 
of the Psalmist, ' a contrite heart.' He goes on to say : ' How 
then shall I crown, or anoint, or what incense shall I offer unto 
the Lord? A heart that glorifies its Maker is a sacrifice of 
sweet odour unto God : these are the garlands, and sacrifices, 
and spices and flowers for God 1.' In another place, condemn- 
ing the luxury of perfumes, he starts an objection, viz. that 
Christ our High Priest may be thought perhaps to offer incense, 
or perfumes, above : an objection grounded probably, either upon 
what the typical high priest did under the Law r , or upon what 
is intimated of Christ himself under the Gospel 3 : to which 
Clemens replies, that our Lord offers no such perfume there, but 
what he does offer above is the spiritual perfume of charity *. 
He alluded, as it seems, to our Lord's philanthropy, in giving 
himself a sacrifice for mankind ; unless we choose to understand 
it of our Lord's recommending the charity of his saints and ser- 
vants at the high altar in heaven. Clemens elsewhere reckons 
up meekness, philanthropy, exalted piety, humility, sound know- 
ledge, among the acceptable sacrifices u , as they amount to sacri- 
ficing the old man, with the lusts and passions : to which he adds 
also the offering up our own selves ; thereby glorifying him who 
was sacrificed for us. Such were this author's sentiments of the 
Christian sacrifices : he looked upon the Church itself as the 
altar here below, the collective body of Christians, sending up 
the sacrifice of prayer to heaven, with united voices : the best and 
holiest sacrifice of all, if sent up in righteousness *. He speaks 
slightly of the legal sacrifices, as being symbols only of evan- 
gelical righteousness y. He makes the just soul to be a holy 

<i Clemens Alex. Paedag. lib. iii. s rb Ovtriaar-fipiov, &c. Clem. Alex. 

c. 12. p. 306. Cp. Strom, lib. ii. Paedag. lib. ii. cap. 8. p. 209. 

pp. 369, 370. u Clem. Alex. Strom, vii. p. 836. 

' Exod. xxx. 7. * Ibid. p. 848. 

B Rev. v. 8 ; viii. 3. Cp. Vitring. J At> yap Kara rbv v6faov Ovcrlai, 

in loc. T^l" Tfpl i>f*as tvo-f&fiav a\\rryopovffi. 

TJ TTJS o-xamjj Sf/trbi/ avaQepftv Ibid. p. 849. 
TOV Kvpiov, T}}V Trvtvuariti 

xn. in a Sacrificial View. 329 

altar z : and as to the sacrifice of the Church, it is ' speech ex- 
haled from holy souls, while the whole mind is laid open before 
God, together with the sacrifice a .' Elsewhere, the sacrifices of 
the Christian Gnostic he makes to be prayers, and lauds, and 
reading of Scripture, and psalms, and anthems b . Such were 
Clemens's general principles, in relation to Gospel sacrifices. He 
has not directly applied them to the particular instance of the 
Eucharist ; though we may reasonably do it for him, upon probable 
presumption. It is manifest that he could not consistently own 
it for a sacrifice of ours, in any other view but as a service carry- 
ing in it such spiritual sacrifices as he has mentioned : in that 
view, it might be upon his principles a noble sacrifice, yea, a 
combination of sacrifices. 

Tertullian may come next, a very considerable writer, who has 
a great deal to our purpose : I shall select what may suffice to 
shew his sentiments of the Christian sacrifices. Giving some ac- 
count of them to the Pagans, in his famous Apology, he expresses 
himself thus : ' I offer unto God a fatter and nobler sacrifice, 
which himself hath commanded ; viz. prayer sent out from a 
chaste body, an innocent soul, and a sanctified spirit : not 
worthless grains of frankincense, the tears of an Arabian tree c ,' 
&c. I shall only observe, that if Tertullian had understood the 
material elements of the Eucharist to be a sacrifice, how easy 
might it have been to retort upon him the worthless grains of 
wheat, and the like. But he had no such thought. Prayer and 
a good life were his sacrifice : and a noble one they are. In an- 
other place of his works, he says ; ' We sacrifice indeed, but it 
is with pure prayer, as God has commanded ; for God, the 
Creator of the universe, hath no need of any incense, or blood d .' 

z Bccubj/ 8t a\r)d}s aytov, T^V 81- Strom, vii. pp. 860, 861. 

Kaiav tyvxiiv. p. 848. Cp. Augustin. c ' Offero ei opimam et majorem 

de Civit. Dei, lib. x. cap. 4. hostiam, quam ipse mandavit ; ora- 

a 'H 0vffia TTjs fKK\7]ffias, \6yos tionem de carne pudica, de anima 

oTrb TUV ayldiv tyvx&v avaOv/j.Ka/j.tvot, innocenti, de spiritu sancto profec- 

fKKa\vTTTo/j.evris a/j.a rrjs 6v<rias, Kal tarn : non grana thuris unius assifi, 

TTJS Siavoias airacrTjs ry Qty. Clem. Arabicae arboris lacrymae,' &c. Ter- 

Alex. p. 848. lull. Apol. cap. xxx. p. 277. edit. 

b Qvcriat nfv aim?, ei>xai Tt Kal Havercamp. 

alvoi, KO.\ irpb TTJJ fffnavfias fvrtv^fis A ' Sacrificamus . . . sed quomodo 

5f Kal v^voi, &o. Deus praecepit, pura prece : non 

33 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 

How obvious might it have been to retort, that God has no need 
of bread or wine, had that been the Christian sacrifice : but 
Tertullian knew better ; and still he rests it upon pui-e prayer, 
that is, prayer together with a good mind. Let us hear him 
again : ' That we ought not to offer unto God earthly, but 
spiritual sacrifices, we may learn from what is written, The 
sacrifice of God is an humble and contrite spirit : and else- 
where, Offer unto God the sacrifice of thanksgiving, and pay 
thy vows unto the Most High. So then, the spiritual sacrifices 
of praise are here pointed to, and a troubled spirit is declared 
to be the acceptable sacrifice unto God e .' What Justin Martyr 
rejected as material sacrifice, our author here rejects under the 
name of earthly, or terrene. Are not bread and wine both of 
them terrene ? Therefore he thought not of them, but of some- 
thing spiritual : and he has named what ; viz. lauds and thanks- 
givings, and discharge of sacred vows, all from an humble and 
contrite heart : these were the acceptable sacrifices, in his ac- 
count. He goes on, in the same place, to quote Isaiah against 
carnal sacrifices, and Malachi also, to shew that spiritual 
sacrifices are established f . In his treatise against Marcion, he 
again refers to the Prophet Malachi, interpreting the pure offer- 
ing there mentioned, not of any material oblation, but of hearty 
prayer from a pure conscience s ; and elsewhere, of giving glory, 
and blessing, and lauds, and hymns h . Which, by the way, may 
serve for a comment upon Justin and Irenaeus, as to their ap- 
plying that passage of Malachi to the Eucharist : they might do 
it, because the spiritual sacrifices here mentioned by Tertullian 
make a great part of the service. It would have been very 

enim egit Deus, conditur universi- cor contribulatum acceptabile sacri- 

tatis, odoris, aut sanguinis alicujus.' ficium Deo demonstratur.' Tertull. 

Tertull. ad Scap. cap. ii. p. 69. adv. Jud. cap. v. p. 188. 
Eigalt. f Tertull. adv. Jud. cap. v. p. 188. 

e ' Namque, quod non terrenis * ' Sacrificium munduin : scilicet 

sacrifices, sed spiritalibus, Deo li- simplex oratio de conscientia pura.' 

tandura sit, ita legimus ut scriptum Tertull. contr. Marc. lib. iv. cap. i. 

est, Cor contribulatum et humilia- p. 414. 

turn hostia Deo est. Et alibi, Sacri- h ' Sacrificium mundum : gloriae 

fica Deo sacrificiurn laudis, et redde scilicet relatio, et benedictio, et laus, 

Altissimo vota tua. Sic igitur sacri- et hymni.' Adv. Marc. lib. Ui. cap. 

ticia spiritalia laudis designantur, et 22. p. 410. 

xii. in a Sacrificial View. 331 

improper to interpret one part of spiritual service, viz. of prayer, 
and the other of a material loaf. In another treatise, Tertullian 
numbers up among the acceptable sacrifices, conflicts of soul, 
fastings, watchings, and abstemiousness, with their mortifying 
appurtenances >. But besides all this, there is, if I mistake not, in 
the latter part of his Book of Prayer (published by Muratorius, 
A. D. 1713) a large and full description of the eucharistical 
sacrifice, which will be worth the transcribing at length. After 
recommending the use of psalmody along with prayers, and the 
making responses in the public service, he then declares that such 
kind of prayer, so saturated with psalmody, is like a well fed 
sacrifice : but it is of the spiritual kind, such as succeeded in the 
room of all the legal sacrifices. Then referring to Isaiah i. 
n, to shew the comparative meanness of the Jewish sacrifices, 
and to John iv. 23, for the right understanding the evangelical, 
he proceeds thus : ' We are the true worshippers and the 
true priests, who worshipping in spirit, do in spirit saci'ifice 
prayer, suitable to God and acceptable ; such as he has re- 
quired, and such as he has provided for himself. This is what 
we ought to bring to God's altar [by way of sacrifice] devoted 
from the whole heart, fed with faith, decked with truth, by 
innocence made entire, and clean by chastity, crowned with a 
feast of charity, attended with a train of good works, amidst 
the acclamations of psalms and anthems V The reader will 

1 ' Sacrificia Deo grata : conflic- Evangelium docet : Veniet hora, in- 

tationes dico animae, jejunia, seras quit, cum veri adoratores adorabunt 

et aridas escas, et appendices hujus Patreni in spiritu et veritate ; Deus 

officii sordes.' De Resurrect. Carn. enim Spiritus est, et adoratores ita- 

cap. viii. p. 330. que tales requirit. Nos sumus veri 

k ' Diligentiores in orando subjun- adoratores, et veri sacerdotes, qui 

gere in orationibus Alleluia solent, Spiritu orantes, Spiritu sacrificamus 

et hoc genus Psalmos, quorum clau- orationem Dei propriam et accepta- 

sulis respondeant, qui simul sunt : bilein, quam scilicet requisivit, quam 

et est optimum utique institutum sibi prospexit. Hanc de toto corde 

omne, quod proponendo et hono- devotain, fide pastam, veritate cura- 

rando Deo competit, saturatam ora- tain, innocentia integram, castitate 

tionera, velut optimam [opimam] mundam, agape coronatam, cum 

hostiam admovere. Haec est enim pompa bonorum operum inter psal- 

Lostia spiritalis, quae pristina sa- mos et hymnos deducere ad Dei 

crificia delevit. Quo mihi, inquit, altare debemus.' Tertull. de Orat. 

multitudinem sacrificiorum vestro- cap. xxvii., xxviii. pp. 52, 53. edit, 

rum ? . . . Quae ergo quaesierit Deus, Murator. 

332 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 

here observe, how the author most elegantly describes the Chris- 
tian and spiritual sacrifice of prayer, in phrases borrowed from 
material sacrifices ; with an heifer, or bullock in his mind, led up 
to the altar to be sacrificed : and his epithets are all chosen, as 
the editor has justly observed, so as to answer that figure \ But 
what I am principally to note is, that this was really intended 
for a description of the eucharistical sacrifice : which is plain 
from the circumstances : i. From his speaking of the public 
psalmody, as going along with it m , and the responses made 
by the assembly. 2. From the mention made of God's altar. 
3. And principally, from what he says of the feast of charity, 
which is known to have been connected with the service of the 
Eucharist, or to have been an appendage to it n , at that time ; 
for which reason, that service may very properly be said to have 
been crowned with it. These circumstances sufficiently shew, 
that Tertullian had the Communion Service in his mind, and 
that was the sacrifice which he there chose to describe ; a com- 
plicated sacrifice, consisting of many articles, and all of them 
spiritual, but all summed up in a right faith, pure worship, and 
good life. Such is the Christian sacrifice ; and such we ought 
to bring constantly to the Lord's table, to the holy and mystical 

To the same purpose speaks Minucius Felix, not long after 
Tertullian. The only gifts proper to be offered to God by Chris- 
tians, are Christian services, Christian virtues, according to his 
account . To offer him anything else, is throwing him back his 
own gifts, not presenting him with anything of ours. What 
could Minucius therefore have thought of offering him bread and 

1 ' Orationi, quam hostiam spiri- offeram, quas in usum mei protulit, 

talem appellat, singula tribmit, quae ut rejiciam ei suum munus ? Ingra- 

victimis carneis conveniebant, nimi- turn est : cum sit litabilis hostia 

rum ut de toto corde voveatur Deo, bonus animus, et pura mens, et 

ut sit pasta, curata, Integra, munda, sincera conscientia. Igitrur, qui in- 

corouata.' Muratorius in Notis, p. 53. nocentiam colit, Domino supplicat ; 

m ' Quorum clausulis respondeant, qui justitiam, Deo libat ; qui fraudi- 

qui Minul sunt.' bus abstinet, propitiat Deum ; qui 

n See Bingham, book xv. chap. 7. hominem periculo subripit, opiraam 

sect. 7, 8. Suicer. Thesaur. torn. i. victimam caedit. Haec nostra sacri- 

p. 26. ficia, haec Dei sacra sunt.' Minuc. 

' Hostias et victimas Domino Fel. sect, xxxii. p. 183. 

xii. in a Sacrificial View. 333 

wine, if considered as gifts or sacrifices to God ] It is manifest, 
that he must have understood the service, not the elements, to 
be the Christian gift, and Christian sacrifice. 

Origen falls in with the sentiments of the earlier Fathers, as 
to spiritual sacrifices, and their being the only Gospel sacrifices. 
Fqr when Celsus had objected to Christians their want of altars, 
he replies : ' The objector does not consider, that, with us, 
every good man's mind is his altar, from whence truly and 
spiritually the incense of perfume is sent up : viz. prayers from 
a pure conscience P.' Then he refers to Rev. v. 8, and to 
Psalm cxli. 2. A little higher up in the same treatise, he speaks 
of Christians presenting their petitions, sacrifices, and supplica- 
tions; beseeching Christ, since ( he is the propitiation for our 
sins,' to recommend the same, in quality of High Priest, to 
the acceptance of God the Father <i. We may here observe, 
that the altar which he speaks of is spiritual, as well as the 
sacrifice. Had he known of any material altar, or material 
sacrifice, (properly so called,) among Christians, this was the 
place for him to have named it. It is true, the Lord's table is 
often called altar in the ancient monuments, and it is a material 
table : and the alms also and oblations made at the same table, 
for the use of church and poor, are material, as well as the table. 
But the service is spiritual, and that is the sacrifice, there 
offei-ed : and therefore the table, considered as an altar, an altar 
for spiritual sacrifice, is a mystical, spiritual altar. So if a man 
offers his own body as a sacrifice for the name of Christ upon a 
scaffold, his body is material, and so is the scaffold also : but 
nevertheless, the sacrifice is spiritual, and the scaffold, considered 
as an altar, must be a spiritual altar, to make it answer to the 
sacrifice, as they are correlates. This I hint by the way, in order 
to obviate some wrong constructions, which have been made r of 

P OvX opiav, on 0cajj.ol p.4v elffiv a|iowTs ourbi', fAao^tbc ovra. wepl 

i}H<.v Tb eicdcrTov rSiv SiKaituv r)yffj.ov- rSiv a/Aa.pricai> fifiiai', irpoffayayfiv $ 

IKUV, a(f>' ov draTTfjUTrerai a\i]6ws Kal 'A.px<- f p*& T * s fvx&St K d Taj 0u<n'ar, 

voTjris ewiSrj a, 01 irpiMTfvxa-l KO.I fas evrfv^fis rj/j.Sii' rf eVl Tram 

airb ffuffi^fftcas Kadopas. Origen. 0<p. p. 751. 
contra Ce!s. p. 755. r gee Johnson's Unbloody Sacrt- 

i 'fit KpiuTov npoff<pfpofj.iv ulna*, fice, part i. p. 30, alias 31. 

334 T&e Eucharist considered CHAP. 

a material table and material elements. It is true, the table is 
material, and the elements also material : but so far as one is 
considered or called an altar, it is spiritual and mystical ; and so 
far as the other are called a sacrifice, they also are spiritual and 
mystical. The holy table is called an altar, with regard to the 
spiritual services, that is, sacrifices sent up from it, and so it is a 
spiritual altar: then as it bears the symbols of the grand sacrifice 
applied in this service, and herein feasted upon by every worthy 
communicant, it is a symbolical or mystical table, answering to 
the symbolical and mystical banquet. But I pass on. 

Cyprian, of that age, speaks as highly of spiritual sacrifices as 
any one before or after him. For in an epistle written to the 
confessors in prison, and not permitted to communicate there, he 
comforts them up in the manner here following : ' Neither your 
religion nor faith can suffer by the hard circumstances you are 
under, that the priests of God have not the liberty to offer and 
celebrate the holy sacrifices. You do celebrate, and you do 
offer unto God a sacrifice both precious and glorious, and 
which will much avail you towards your obtaining heavenly 
reAvards. The holy Scripture says, The sacrifice of God is a 
broken spirit, a broken and a contrite heart God doth not despise, 
Psalm li. 17. This sacrifice you offer to God, this you celebrate 
without intermission, day and night, being made victims to 
God, and presenting yourselves as such, holy and unblemished, 
pursuant to the Apostle's exhortation, where he says, I beseech 
you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present 
your bodies, &c. Rom. xii. i. For this is what pleases God : 
and it is this by which our other services are rendered more 
worthy, for the engaging the Divine acceptance. This is the 
only thing that our devout and dutiful affections can offer under 
the name of a return for all his great and salutary blessings : 
for so by the Psalmist says the Spirit of God, What shall I 
render, &c. Psalm cxvi. 12, 13, 15. Who would not readily 
and cheerfully take this cup 8 ?' The remarks here proper 
are as follow : i. That the author looked upon the Eucharist as 

8 Cyprian, Epist. Ixxvi. p. 232. ed. Oxon., alias Epist. Ixxvii. p. 159. 
ed. Bened. 

xii. in a Sacrificial View. 335 

an oblation, or sacrifice, or complication of sacrifices. 2. That 
in case of injurious exclusion from it, he conceived that spiritual 
sacrifices alone were equivalent to it, or more than equivalent to 
the ordinary sacrifices therein offered.- 3. That therefore be 
could not suppose any sacrifice offered in the Eucharist to be the 
archetypal sacrifice itself, or to be tantamount to it : which I note 
chiefly in opposition to Mr. Dodwell, who imagined that the 
ancients ' reckoned the Christian Eucharist for the archetypal 
sacrifice of Christ upon the cross f :' an assertion, which must 
be very much qualified and softened, to make it tolerable. The 
Eucharist, considered as a Sacrament, is indeed representative 
and exhibitive of the archetypal sacrifice ; not as offered, but as 
feasted upon by us, given and applied by God and Christ to every 
worthy receiver. Therefore that excellently learned man inad- 
vertently here confounded the sacrificial view of the Eucharist 
with the sacramental one, and man's part in it with what is 
properly God's. What we give to God is our own service, and 
ourselves, which is our sacrifice : but the archetypal sacrifice 
itself is what no one but Christ himself could offer, whether 
really or symbolically. We represent it, we do not offer it in the 
Eucharist; but it is there sacrameatally or symbolically to us 
exhibited, or applied. 4. It may be noted of Cyprian, that he 
judged the devoting our whole selves to God's service and to 
God's glory, to be the most acceptable sacrifice which we are 
capable of offering : and his preferring the sacrifice of martyrdom 
(other circumstances supposed equal) to the ordinary sacrifice of 
the Eucharist, was conformable to the standing principles of the 
Church, in preferring the baptism of blood to the baptism of 
water u . 

It remains to be inquired, in how many senses, or upon what 
accounts, St. Cyprian styled the Eucharist a sacrifice, i. He 
might so style it on account of the lay-offerings therein made, 
which were a spiritual sacrificed 2. Next, on account of the 
sacerdotal recommendation of the same offerings to the Divine 

1 Dodwell of Incense, p. 55. 

u Yid. Dodwell. Cyprian. Dissert, xiii. p. 420, &c. 

v See above, chap. i. p. 26. 

336 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 

acceptance x : which was another spiritual sacrifice. 3. On 
account of the prayers, lauds, hymns, &c. which went along with 
both the former, and were emphatically spiritual sacrifice. 4. On 
account of the Christian charity and brotherly love signified by 
and exemplified in the service of the Eucharist : for that Cyprian 
looked upon as a prime sacrifice of it y. 5. On account of the 
grand sacrifice applied by Christ, commemorated and feasted on 
by us (not properly offered) in the Eucharist z . Such commemo- 
ration is itself a spiritual service, of the same nature with lauds, 
and so makes a part of the spiritual sacrifice of the Eucharist. 
In these several views, Cyprian might, or probably did, look upon 
the Eucharist as a sacrifice, and accordingly so named it. 

There is one particular passage in Cyprian, which has been 
often pleaded by Romanists in favour of a real sacrificing of 
Christ in the Eucharist, and sometimes by Protestants, amongst 
ourselves, in favour of a material sacrifice at least, or of a 
symbolical offering up of Christ's body and blood to God the 
Father. The words of Cyprian run thus : ' If Jesus Christ, our 
Lord and God, be the High Priest of God the Father, and 
first offered himself a sacrifice to the Father, and commanded 
this to be done in commemoration of himself; then that 
Priest truly acts in Christ's stead, who imitates what Christ 
did, and then offers a true and complete sacrifice in the Church 
to God the Father, if he begins so to offer, as he sees Christ to 
have offered before a .' From hence it has been pleaded, that 

* See above, p. 26. Pope Innocent de Orat. p. 211. edit. Bened., p. 150. 

I. clearly expresses both, in these Oxon. 

words : 'De nominibus vero recitan- * See above, chap. i. pp. 25, 31. 
diw, antequam preces sacerdos faciat, ' Si Jesus Christus, Dominus et 
atque eorum oblationes, quorum no- Deus noster, ipse est summus sacer- 
inina recitanda sunt, sua oratione dos Dei Patris, et sacrificium Patri 
commendet, quam superfluum sit, et seipsum primus obtulit, et hoc fieri 
ipse pro tua prudentia recognoscis : in sui commemorationem praecepit ; 
ut cujus hostiam nee dum Deo of- utique ille sacerdos vice Christi vere 
feras, ejus ante nomen insinues,'&c. fungitur, qui id, quod Christus fecit, 
Harduin. Concil. torn. i. p. 997. imitatur, et sacrificium verum et pie- 
s' ' Sic nee sacrificium Deus recipit num tune offert in Ecclesia Deo Pa- 

dissidentis Sacrificium Deo majus tri, si sic incipiat offerre secundum 

est pax nostra et fraterna concordift, quod ipsum Christum videat obtu- 

et de imitate Patris et Filii et Spiri- lisse.' Cyprian. Ep. Ixiii. p. 109. 

tus Sancti plebs adunata.' Cyprian. And see above, ch. i. p. 25. 

xii. in a Sacrificial View. 337 

Christ offered himself in the Eucharist, and that the Christian 
Priests ought to do the same that he did ; that is, to offer, or 
sacrifice, Christ himself in this Sacrament. But it is not certain 
that Cyprian did mean (as he has not plainly said) that Christ 
offered himself in the Eucharist : he might mean only, that 
Christ offered himself upon the cross, and that he instituted this 
Sacrament as a commemoration of it. As to the words true and 
complete sacrifice, he certainly meant no more, than that Christ 
offered both bread and wine, and had left it us in charge to do 
the same : and this he observed in opposition to some of that 
time, who affected to mutilate the Sacrament by leaving out the 
wine, and using water instead of it, which was not doing the 
same that Christ did. 

However, I think it not material to dispute whether Cyprian 
ideally intended to teach, that our Lord offered himself in the 
Eucharist, since it is certain, that some Fathers of eminent note 
in the Church, after his days, did plainly and in terms affirm 
it b : and other Fathers admitted of our Lord's offering, or de- 
voting himself previously to the passion c . And they are therein 
followed by several learned moderns, even among Protestants d ; 
who ground the doctrine chiefly on John xvii. 19. A sufficient 
answer to the objection (so far as concerns the Komish plea 
built thereupon) is given by our incomparable Bishop Jewel, in 
these words : 'We deny not but it may well be said, Christ at his 
last supper offered up himself unto his Father : albeit, not really 
and indeed, but in a figure, or in a mystery ; in such sort as we 
say, Christ was offered in the sacrifices of the old Law, and, as 

b Hilarius, in Matt. c. xxxi. p. Sacrif. pp. 307, 370. Witsius, Mis- 

743. ed. Bened. Arnbrosius, de Mys- cellan. Sacr. torn. i. dissert. 2. not. 

ter. Paschae, c. i. Gregor. Nyssen. 87. In Symb. Apost. Exercit. x. p. 

de Kesurr. Christi, seu Pasch. i. 147. Whitby on John xvii. 19. Zor- 

Hesychius in Levit. pp. 55, 56; cp. nius, Opusc. Sacr. torn. ii. p. 251. 

J 69, 376, 540. Cp. Steph. Gobar. Deylingius, Observat. Miscel. p, 

apud Phot. Cod. 232. p. 902. Missal. 560. Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, 

Gotho-Gallican. p. 297. et Mabillon. part i. pp. 6 1 96. part ii. pp. 4 10. 

in Praefat. et alibi. N.B. These authors suppose that our 

c Chrysostom. in Joan. Horn. Lord devoted himself beforehand, 

Ixxxii. 484. Cyril. Alex, de Adorat. gave himself on the cross, presented 

lib. x, p. 350. In Joan. lib. iv. c. 2, himself in heaven : one continued 

p. 354. oblation in all, but distinguished into 

d Mede, Opp. p. 14. Outram de three several parts, views, or stages. 


338 The Eucharist considered CHAP, 

St. John says, The lamb was slain from the beginning of the 
world, as Christ was slain at the table, so was he sacrificed at 
the table ; but he was not slain at the table verily and indeed, 
but only in a mystery e .' This is a just and full answer to the 
Romanists, with whom the good Bishop held the debate. But it 
may still be pleaded by those who maintain a material sacrifice, 
that this answer affects not them, since they contend only, that 
Christ offered the symbols in the Eucharist, and himself under 
those symbols, that is, in a mystery ; just as a man offers to 
God houses or lands, by presenting a sword, or piece of money, 
or pair of gloves, upon the altar of a church, or transfers an 
estate by delivery of parchments, and the like : and if Christ 
thus symbolically offered himself a sacrifice in the Eucharist, 
why may he not be, in like manner, symbolically offered in the 
Eucharist at this day f 1 This, I think, is the sum and substance 
of what is pleaded by some Protestants in favour of a symboli- 
cal sacrifice, as offered in the Eucharist. To which I answer : 
i. That no one has any authority or right to offer Christ as a 
sacrifice (whether really or symbolically) but Christ himself. 
Such a sacrifice is his sacrifice, not ours; offered for us, and not 
by us, to God the Father. If Christ in the institution offered 
himself under those symbols, (which however does not appear ?,) 
he might have a right to do it : we have none, and so can only 
commemorate what he did, and by the same symbols. 2. If we 
symbolically sacrifice anything in the Eucharist, it is only in 
such a sense as St. Austin (hereafter to be quoted) speaks of ; 
where he considers the bread and wine as symbols of the united 
body of the Church. We may so symbolically offer up, or sacri- 
fice ourselves, and that is all : more than that cannot comport 
with Scripture, or with the principle of the ancients, that all our 
sacrifices are made in and by Christ. He is not the matter or 
subject of our sacrifices, but the Mediator of them : we offer not 
him, but we offer what we do offer, by him h . 3. If the thing 

e Jewel, Answer to Harding, p. S Vid. Sam. Basnag. Annal. torn. 

417 ; compare pp. 426, 427. i. pp. 371, 372. 

f See Johnson's Collection of Sax on h Heb. xiii. 15. 'Per Jesum Chris- 
Laws, &c. praef. p. 57, &c. turn offert Ecclesia. . . . Non recepe- 

xn. in a Sacrificial View. 

symbolically offered in the Eucharist were Christ himself, then 
the offerer or offerers must stand in the place of Christ, and be 
as truly the symbols of Christ in their offering capacity, as the 
elements are supposed to be in their sacrificial capacity. Then 
not only the Priests, but the whole Church, celebrating the 
Eucharist, must symbolically represent the person of Christ, and 
stand in his stead : a notion which has no countenance in Scrip- 
ture or antiquity, but is plainly contradicted by the whole tura 
and tenor of all the ancient Liturgies, as well as by the plain 
nature and reason of the thing. 4. I may add, lastly, that all 
the confusion, in this article, seems to arise from the want of 
distinguishing the sacrificial part of the Eucharist from the 
sacramental one, as before noted : we do not offer Christ to God 
in the Eucharist, but God offers Christ to us, in return for our 
offering ourselves. We commemorate the grand sacrifice, but do 
not reiterate it ; no not so much as under symbols. But God 
applies it by those symbols or pledges : and so, though there is 
no symbolical sacrifice of that kind, neither can be, yet there is 
a symbolical grant, and a symbolical banquet, which is far better, 
and which most effectually answers all purposes. In short, there 
is, as the Apostle assures us, a communion of Christ's body and 
blood, in the Eucharist, to every worthy receiver. The real and 
natural body is, as it were, under symbols and pledges, conveyed 
to us here, where the verity is not : but to talk of our sending 
the same up thither, under the like pledges, where the verity 
itself is, carries no appearance of truth or consistency ; neither 
hath it any countenance either in Scripture or antiquity. 

I now go on to Lactantius, Avho is supposed to have nourished 
about A. D. 318. The Christian sacrifices which he speaks of, 
are meekheartedness, innocent life, and good works. He allows 
of no sacrifices but of the incorporeal invisible kind, being that 
such only are fit for God, who is incorporeal and invisible, to 
receive, under the last and most perfect dispensation of the 

runt verbum per quod offertur Deo.' Evang. lib. i. c. 10. p. 39. Cp. Au- 

Iren. lib. iv. c. 17, 18. pp. 249, 251. gustin. de Civ. Dei, lib. x. c. 20. 

ed. Bened. ?$ M irdvTwv irpoa-fyfpeiv Apo.stol. Const, lib. ii. c. 25. pp. 

0e<, 5ict rov ira.vT<av a.v<ind.Tov ap^ie- 240, 241. 
pe'ais aiiroD StSiSiry/xefla. Euseb. Dem. 

Z 2 

34-O The Eucharist considered CHAP. 

Gospel. He distinguishes between gifts and sacrifices, because 
the Pagans had so distinguished : but in the last result, he lays 
no stress upon that distinction, indifferently reckoning a good 
life, either as a gift or a sacrifice. However, where he seems at 
all to distinguish, he chooses to make integrity the gift, and such 
an one as shall continue for ever ; while he appropriates the name 
of sacrifice, emphatically so used, to lauds, hymns, and the like, 
which he supposes are appointed for a time only*. 

We may now come down to Eusebius, of the same century, a 
man of infinite reading, and particularly conversant in Christian 
antiquities. He speaks of ' the venerable sacrifices of Christ's 
table, by which officiating, we are taught to offer up to God 
supreme, during our whole lives, the unbloody, spiritual, and to 
him most acceptable sacrifices, through the High Priest of his, 
who is above all k .' For the clearer understanding of what 
he meant by ' the unbloody, spiritual sacrifices,' let him explain 
himself in the same page, where he says : ' The prophetic oracles 
make mention of these incorporeal and spiritual sacrifices : Offer 
unto God the sacrifice of praise, and pay thy vows unto the 
Most High.' And again, ' The sacrifice of God is a contrite 
spirit V &c. Hence it is manifest, that Eusebius did not mean 
by sacrifices the sacred symbols, which are corporeal, but the 
spiritual services of prayers, praises, and a contrite heart, as he 
expressly mentions. Which will appear still the plainer, by his 
quoting, soon after, the noted place of Malachi, and expounding 

* Quisquis igitur his omnibus prae- vi. c. 24, 25. 

ceptia caelestibus obtemperaverit, hie k To fff/ TT}S Xpiffrov rpa.-ir4Qr,s 

cultor est veri Dei, cujus sacrificia Ovuara, Si' wv Ka\\ifpovvrfs, TO.S avat- 

sunt mansuetudo aniini. et vita in- povs Kal \oyiKas avry T irpo<nr)vf'is 

nocens, et actus boni. . . . Duo sunt Ovirlas, Sia navr^s /Si'ou, ry M irdv- 

quae offerri debeant, donum et sa- r<av irpocr<peptii' 0% Sia rov Trdv-rtav 

crificium : donum in perpetuum, aa- avwdrov apx.itpf<as avrov SeSiSdy- 

crificium ad tempus. . . . Deo utrum- /xeflo. Euseb. Dem. Evang. lib. i. 

que incorporate offerendum est, quo c. 10. p. 39. 

utitur. Donum est integritas animi, ' Tavras 5e ird\iv rciy aff<a/j.drovs 

Bacrificium Jaus et hymnus. Si enim Kal vofpcis Bva-'ias TO. vpo<py\TiKa xrjpvr- 

Deus non videtur, ergo his rebus coli ret \6yta . . , Bvffov T<? t$ 6vffia.v 

debet, quae non videntur. . . . Summus aiVe rrews, Kal aw68os rf in^iffrca TOCJ 

igitur colendi Dei ritus est, ex ore tvxds <rov . . . KOI iraA.iv, 6va(a TW &ecf> 

justi hominis ad Deum directa lau- irvtv/jLa a\)VTtTpip\i.<vov. Euseb. ibid, 

datio.' Lactant. de vero Cultu, lib. p. 39. 

xii, in a Sacrificial Yiew. 341 

both the incense and pure offering, of prayers and praises. His 
comment is worth the reciting : ' We offer therefore to God 
supreme the sacrifice of praise : we offer the holy, the venerable 
sacrifice, which hath a decorous sanctity : we offer after a new 
way, according to the New Testament, the pure sacrifice : for 
the sacrifice to God is said to be a contrite spirit 111 .' He goes 
on to sum up all in very strong and remarkable words, as here 
follows : ' Therefore we offer both sacrifice and incense : first, 
celebrating the memorial of the grand sacrifice by those mys- 
teries which he has ordained, and presenting our thanksgivings 
for our salvation, by devout hymns and prayers. Next, we offer 
up ourselves to him, and to the Logos, his High Priest, resting 
upon him both with body and soul. Whereupon we endeavour 
to preserve to him our bodies pure and untainted from all filthi- 
ness, and to bring him minds free from all evil affection and 
stain of maliciousness, and take care to honour him by purity of 
thought, sincerity of affection, and soundness of principles ; for 
these, we are taught, are more acceptable to him than a multitude 
of sacrifices, streaming with blood, and smoke, and nidor n .' 

This is an admirable description of the eucharistical solemnity, 
of the sacrifices contained in it, and of the ends and uses of it, 
and likewise of the preparation proper for it. But my present 
concern is only with the sacrificial view of it. Eusebius here 
takes notice, in the first place, of the grand sacrifice : which is 
no sacrifice of ours, but we make a memorial of it ; and that 
very memorial is indeed an article of spiritual service, and so of 
course makes a part of our own spiritual sacrifice in the Eu- 
charist . The rest is made up of such other sacrifices as the 
author has there handsomely enumerated. I shall only observe 
further of Eusebius, for the cutting off all possible cavils about 

vo/j.fv SJjTa roiyapovf T$ eVl I observed above, p. 322, note p, 

irav-rtav fif 0v<riav alvffftias'' that the legal incense was a memorial, 

rb tvQeov Ka\ at/jLvkv Ka.1 tfpoirpeirfs and it was burnt over the show-bread, 

ODjua' 6vofj.ev Katvces Kara TTJV Kaiv^v Lev. xxiv. 7- I 11 'ike manner, our 

5ia0rj7)i' "rfyv KaOap'av Qvalav Ovffia 8e commemorative service is offered up 

Ttf Qtp irvev/Aa ffWTerptfjLutvov (Ipy- to God over the elements, and is 

rat. Euseb. ibid. p. 40 ; cp. c. vi. part of our Gospel incense, consist- 

pp. 19, 20, 21, et in Psalm, p. 212. ing of prayers, lauds, self-hunrilia- 

Euseb. ibid. c. x. p. 40. tion, &c. 

342 The Eucharist, considered CHAP. 

his meaning, that in another work of his he expressly teaches, 
that the unbloody sacrifices will be offered to God, not only in 
this life present, but also in the life to come P. Certainly, he 
could not intend it of the eucharistic symbols, but of some- 
thing else. Cyril of Alexandria has followed him in the same 
thought, where he supposes the angels to offer the unbloody 
sacrifices 1. 

Were I now to go on to other Fathers, down to the sixth 
century, or further, it might be tedious to the reader : but they 
will all be found constant and uniform in one tenor of doctrine, 
rejecting all material, corporeal, terrene, sensible sacrifices, and 
admitting none but spiritual, such as I have mentioned. Neither 
is there any difference concerning that point between Justin of 
the second, and Cyril of the fifth century, but that the latter is 
more full and express for the same thing. However, I shall go 
on a little further, making choice of a few testimonies, appearing 
most considerable either for their weight or their accuracy. I pass 
over Hilary and Basil, with bare references to the pages r : but 
Gregory Nazianzen may deserve our more especial notice. He 
was eminently called the Divine, for his exactness of judgment, 
and his consummate knowledge in theology ; and he has some 
remarkable passages, very apposite to our present purpose. 
About the year 379, putting the case, that possibly, through 
the iniquity of the times, he might be driven from the altar, and 
debarred the benefit of the Eucharist, he comforts himself thus : 
' Will they drive me from the altars 1 But I know, there is 
another altar, whereof these visible ones are but the figures, 

P Kol 7&p 4v T< irapSvTi fiitf, Kal have added Greg. Nyssen. de Poenit. 

ev r<p fj,f\\ovn Be aleavi, TO. \oyiKa p. 1 70. As to this place of Cyril, he 

S-l'pa Kal rets ai'oujuaKTas r &f<f Ov- supposes it meant of offering Christ's 

alas avairf^iraiv ov Sia\ifj.-n-dvfi 6 5?jAa>- body in heaven. Addend, to part i. 

Ofls \a6s. Euseb. in Hesai. xviii. in part ii. p. 266. A strange thought! 

p. 427. especially considering that angels are 

i Cyrill. Alexandr. de Eecta Fide, supposed by Cyril to be the offerers, 
p. 160. N. B. The learned author Compare what Lactantius says above 
of Unbloody Sacrifice once thought, of gifts, as continuing for ever, mean- 
that mere spiritual sacrifices were ing the tribute of homage, &c., and 
never called unbloody : but he found so all is clear. 

afterwards that prayers had that epi- r Hilarius, pp. 154, 228, 534, 535. 

thet given them by Constantine. edit. Bened. Basil, torn. iii. pp. 52, 

Apud Sozom. lib. ii. c. 15. He might 207. edit. Bened. 

xix. in a Sacrificial View. 343 

&c To that will I present myself, there will I offer the 

acceptable services, sacrifice, oblation, and holocausts, preferable 
to those now offered, as much as truth is preferable to shadow. 

From this altar no one, who has ever so much a mind to 

it, shall be able to debar me 8 .' Here we may observe, how 
Nazianzen prefers the spiritual sacrifices even before the sacrifice 
of the altar, externally considered. A plain argument, that he 
did not look upon it as the archetypal sacrifice: for, if he had, 
he could never have been so presumptuous or profane, as to 
prefer any sacrifice of his own to the sacrifice of Christ. He 
looked upon the eucharistical sacrifice, externally considered, and 
in its representative, commemorative view, to be no more than 
the figure of the archetypal, and a sign of the spiritual sacrifices : 
therefore he justly preferred the substance before shadows, and 
the real sacrifice of the heart, before the outward symbols * ; the 
offering of which was not sacrificing at all, but representing a 
sacrifice, or sacrifices. 

There is another passage of Nazianzen, worth the reciting ; 
and so I shall throw it in here, with some proper remarks upon 
it. He had been setting forth the dignity and danger of the 
sacerdotal function, which for some time he had studiously 
declined ; and among other considerations, he urges one, drawn 
from the weighty concern of well-administering the holy Com- 
munion, as here follows : ' Knowing that no man is worthy of 
the great God, and Sacrifice, and High Priest, who has not first 
presented himself a living holy sacrifice unto God, and exhibited 
the rational acceptable service, and offered to God the sacrifice 
of praise, and the contrite spirit, (which is the only sacrifice that 
God, who giveth all things, demands from us back again,) how 

8 vffia.ffTt]pi<iiv ttp^ovffiv ; ccAA* oT5a the eucharistical sacrifice began to be 

Kal &\\o BvtTta.ffT'fiptoy, ov n'rwoi TCI vvv more and more confined to one par- 

&pca/j.eva.' rovrcf.. .Trapaffrriffo/aai, TOV- ticular meaning, and to be under- 

rci) 6vo-<a SSKTO., Bvffiav Kal Trpoff<popav stood in a narrow sense, as denoting 

Kal 6\oKavTia/j.ara, Kpeirrova rSiis vvv the representation of a sacrifice : 

Trpoffa.yofj.evwv, '6cr<a Kptlrrov <TKIO.S a\-fi- otherwise there would have been 

Qua. . . . TOVTOV fitv OUK aira(i /j.t TOV no room for Nazianzen's preferring 

9v<rtaffT7]piov Tras 6 &ov\6fj.evos. Greg, one to another ; for it would have 

Nazianz. Orat. xxviii. p. 484. Cp. been opposing spiritual sacrifice to 

Albertinus, p. 474. spiritual, and would not have an- 

' -Hence it may be observed, that swered. 

344 'Me Eucharist considered CHAP. 

shall I dare to offer him the external sacrifice, the antitype of 
the great mysteries ? or how shall I take upon me the character 
or title of a priest, before I have purified my hands with holy 
works u ?' Here it maybe noted, i. That the author distinguishes 
very carefully between the external sacrifice in the Eucharist, 
and the internal, between the symbolical and the real. 2. That 
he did not judge the external sacrifice to be really a sacrifice, 
or to be more than nominal, since he opposes it to the real, in- 
ternal sacrifices, judging them to be the only sacrifices required. 
3. That he judged the external sacrifice to be the sign, symbol, or 
figure x of a true sacrifice, (viz. of the grand sacrifice,) improperly 
or figuratively called a sacrifice, by a metonymy of the sign for 
the thing signified y. 4. That such external, nominal sacrifice 
has also the name of oblation z , in the same figurative, metony- 
mical way, as it was presenting to God the signs and symbols of 
the body broken, and blood shed, and pleading the merits of the 
passion there represented. 5. That the name of rational or 
spiritual service, borrowed from St. Paul a , is not a name for the 
external sacrifice, in our author, but for the internal of prayers, 
praises, contrite heart, &c. 6. That the external sacrifice, (being 

n Tavra ovv et'Sais ya>, Kal Sri ' Christ is, in some sense, offered 
/u.7j5els &ios rov fj.fyd\ov Kal fov, Kal up to God by every communicant in 
Oiiparos, Kal 'Apxnpf(os, 3<rm fify irp6- the Sacrament, when he does men- 
rtpov f ambit TrapfffTTjffe Tip &ef Ov- tally and internally offer him to God, 
ffiav u<rai>, aylav, juqSe edvcre rf e<5 and present, as it were, his bleeding 
Gvfflav alvffffois Kal irvtvp.0. owrtTpiju- Saviour to his Father, and desire 
Htvov ($v fj.6vov 6 irdvTa Souy airairfi him for his sake to be merciful to 
irap' rjfjuav Ovff(av) iruis e/j.f\\ov Bappri- him, and forgive him his sins. This 
ffai irpoff<pepftv avry r^v efaOtv, rijv internal oblation of Christ and his 
Tcaif (j.tyd\ti>i> nvffrrjpicav avrirvwov ; t) passion is made by every faithful 
ircas Upfws a\rifia Kal ovopa viroSve- Christian, &c. . . . The Minister also 
a~0ai, irplv otrlots ilpyots Te\fiuirai rets .... does offer, as it were, Jesus 
X? "ipas ; Greg. Nazianz. Orat. i. p. Christ and his sacrifice for the people,' 
38. &c. Dr. Payne's Discourse on the 
* This is intimated by the word Sacrifice of the Mass, A.D. 1688, pp. 
avrirvirov. Cp. Orat. xi. p. 187. 52,53. Compare Abp. Sharpe, vol. 
Orat. xvii. p. 273. Of which word vii. serm. xi. p. 251, and Deylingius, 
see Albertinus, pp. 273 283. Pfaf- Observat. Miscellan. p. 315, and 
fius, pp. 131 145. Pfaffius, who says, This no Pro- 
s' ~V*id. Suicer. Thesaur. torn. 3. testants deny, pp. 106, 314, 344. 
pp. 1423, 1424. The oblation, in this view, is but 
z Intimated in the word irpoffQfpfiv. another name for commemoration; 
Cp. Cyrill. Hierosol. Myst. v. c. 9. as I have often noted before, 
p. 328. * Rom. xii. i. AoyiK^ \arpda, 

xii. in a Sacrificial View. 345 

the same with the memorial,) if considered as more than vocal, 
and making a part of the thanksgiving service, may be justly 
reputed a sacrifice of the spiritual kind, falling under the head 
of sacrifice of praise. 7. That the spiritual sacrifices, whether 
considered as previous qualifications, or present services of priests 
and people, were thought to be the only true and proper sacrifices 
performed b in the Eucharist : and therefore so far as it is itself 
a sacrifice, and not barely a sign of a former sacrifice, it is a 
spiritual sacrifice. 8. Those spiritual sacrifices were believed 
essential to the Eucharist, considered either as a sacrifice or a 
salutary sacrament: for, without such spiritual sacrifices, there 
was no sacrifice performed at all, but a representation of a 
sacrifice c ; and not of ours, but of our Lord's. And though the 
Eucharist would still be a sacrament, (not a sacrifice,) yet it 
could not be salutary either to administrator or receiver, for 
want of the spiritual sacrifices, to give it life and efficacy ; as is 
here sufficiently intimated by Nazianzen. 

There is a commentary upon Isaiah, which has been ascribed 
to St. Basil by critics of the first rate, but yet is probably 
rejected, as none of his, by the last learned editor of Basil's 
works; who allows it however to be an useful piece, and as 
early as the fourth century, or thereabout. What I mention him 
for is, that, instead of all the legal sacrifices, he admits of two 
only, under the Gospel ; our Lord's upon the cross, and ours, 
which consists in every man's offering his own self d . There is 
another author, who has commonly gone under the name of 
St. Chrysostom, but is now rejected as spurious, who divides the 
sacrifices of the Gospel after the same way : only the latter of 
the two he subdivides into nine, and so makes ten in all e , and 
all of the spiritual kind. Cyril of Alexandria has a great many 

b I say, performed ; there is an- per sacramentum memoriae celebra- 

other sacrifice represented, commemo- tur.' Augustin. contr. Faust, lib. sx. 

rated, which was performed 1700 c. 21. p. 348. torn. viii. edit. Bened. 
years ago upon the cross. d Pseudo-Basil, in Isa. p. 398, &c. 

' Hujus sacrificii caro et sanguis, torn. i. edit. Bened. 
ante adventum Christi per victimas e Pseudo-Chrysostom.inPsal. xcv. 

similitudinum promittebatur : in pas- p. 631. inter spuria, edit. Bened. 

sione Christi per ipsam veritatem torn. v. 
reddebatur : post ascensum Christi 

346 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 

things very clear and express to our present purpose* : but there 
is one particular passage in his tenth book against Julian, which 
is so plain, and so full for spiritual sacrifices, in opposition to all 
material or corporeal sacrifices whatsoever, that nothing can be 
more so. Comparing the sacrifices of Christians with those of 
the Jews, he writes thus : ' We sacrifice now much better than 
they of old did : for here descendeth from heaven, not any 
sensible fire for a symbol of the ineffable nature but, the Holy 
Spirit himself, from the Father by the Son, enlightening the 
Church, and receiving our sacrifices, namely, the spiritual and 
mental ones. The Israelites offered up to God bullocks and 
sheep, turtles and pigeons ; yea, and first fruits of the earth, 
fine flour with oil poured upon it, cakes, and frankincense : but 
we, discarding all such gross service, are commanded to perform 
one that is fine and abstracted, intellectual and spiritual. For 
we offer up to God, for a sweetsmelling savour, all kinds of 
virtues, faith, hope, charity, righteousness, temperances,' &c. 
Here it is to be noted, that Cyril rejects adsolutely all corporeal 
sacrifices, and not only the bloody ones of bulls and goats, and the 
like. He opposes the Christian mental sacrifices to the sacrifices 
of fine flour and cakes, and other such gross and sensible sacrifices. 
How could he do this, if he thought the elements of the Eucha- 
rist were a sacrifice or sacrifices 1 Are bread and wine at all less 
gross, or less sensible, than fine flour, cakes, and oil, and other 
fruits of the earth 1 Or have they any other claim to the name 
of mental and spiritual sacrifices, than the other also might justly 
have ? Therefore it is plain, that Cyril never admitted the 
material elements of the Eucharist, as any part of the Christian 
sacrifice ; but the spiritual service performed in it, that was the 
sacrifice. The material elements were signs and symbols of our 
Lord's sacrifice, not the sacrifice itself, nor any sacrifice at all, in 
strict propriety of speech : for our own proper sacrifice, as distinct 
from our Lord's, are our own services of prayer and praise, of faith, 
and of a good life. Such is the constant doctrine of all antiquity. 

f Cyril. Alex, contr. Julian, lib. 5x. p. 830. 

pp. 307, 308. Comment, in Is. lib. i. Cyrill. Alex, contr. Jul. lib. x. 
Orat. i. pp. 14, 15. In Malach. i. n. p. 345. 

xii. in a Sacrificial View. 347 

I shall close this account with the sentiments of the great 
St. Austin. His ti'eatise De Civitate Dei may be called his 
masterpiece, being his most learned, most correct, and most 
elaborate work ; which lay upon his hands thirteen years, from 
413 to 426 : he died in 431. Here then we may expect to find 
his maturest sentiments, laid down with the utmost exactness, 
relating to the sacrifice of the Eucharist. He comprises all the 
Gospel sacrifices under two : one of which is our Lord's own 
sacrifice upon the cross ; and the other is the Church's offering 
herself. The first of these is represented and participated in the 
Eucharist, the latter is executed : this is the sum of his doctrine. 
Of the former he observes h , that it succeeded in the room of the 
legal sacrifices which prefigured it : of the latter he observes, that 
the legal sacrifices were signs or symbols of it *. The legal sacri- 
fices were, in a prophetic and propitiatory view, figures of the 
former, and in a tropological view, figures of the latter. The 
body of Christ he considers as twofold, natural and mystical ; 
one of which is represented by us, and exhibited by Christ in the 
Eucharist ; the other is offered as a proper spiritual sacrifice k : 
and the bread and wine in the Eucharist are considered as 
symbols of both. I say, he considers the sacramental elements 
not merely as symbols of the natural body, but of the mystical 
also, viz. the Church *, represented by the one loaf and the one 

h ' Id enim sacrificium successit falsa cesserunt.' Ibid. lib. x. cap. 20. 

omnibus sacrificiis Veteris Testa- p. 256. Cp. lib. xix. cap. 23. p. 227. 

menti, quae immolabatitur in umbra k ' Hoc est sacrificium Christiano- 

futuri.' ' Pro illis omnibus sacrificiia rum, multi unum corpus in Christo : 

et oblationibus corpus ejus offertur, quod etiam sacramento altaris, fide- 

et participantibus ministratur.' Au- libus noto, frequentat Ecclesia, ubi ei 

gust, de Civit Dei, lib. xvii. cap. 21. demonstratur, quod in ea re quam 

p. 484. offert ipsa offeratur.' Ibid. lib. x. c. 

' ' Per hoc et sacerdos est, et ipse 6. p. 243. 

oblatio : cujus rei sacramentum quo- ' Hujus autem praeclarissimum 

tidianum esse voluit Ecclesia sacri- atque optimum sacrificium nos ipsi 

ficium, quae cum ipsius capitis corpus sumus, hoc est, civitas ejus : cujus 

sit, seipsam per ipsum discit offerre. rei mysterium celebramus oblationi- 

Hujus veri sacrificii nmltiplicia varia- bus nostris, quae fidelibus notae sunt.' 

que signa erant sacrificia prisca sane- Lib. xix. cap. 23. p. 226. 

torum, cum ob hoc unum per multa * ' Corpus ergo Christi si vis in- 

figuraretur, tanquam verbis multis telligere, Apostolum audi dicentem 

res una diceretur, ut sine fastidio fidelibus, Vos estis corpus Christi 

multum commendaretur. Huic sum- et membra. Si ergo vos estis corpus 

mo veroque sacrificio cuncta sacrificia Christi et membra, mysterium ves- 

348 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 

Cup : so that by the same symbols we symbolically consign our- 
selves over to God, and God consigns Christ, with all the merits 
of his death and passion, over to us. At length, his notion of 
the eucharistical sacrifice resolves into one compound idea of a 
spiritual sacrifice, (wherein the communicants offer up them- 
selves,) commemorative of another sacrifice, viz. the grand sacri- 
fice. The offering of the body of Christ is a phrase capable 
of two meanings ] either to signify the representing the natural 
body, or the devoting the mystical body : and both are included 
in the eucharistical service. Such appears to be St. Austin's 
settled judgment in this article, grounded, as I said, upon 
St. Paul's. It is a most ridiculous pretence of Father Harduin, 
(which he pursues through many tedious pages m ,) that, according 
to St. Austin, Christ's natural body is the sign, and his mystical 
body the thing signified in the Eucharist : for nothing is plainer 
from St. Austin, than that the bread and wine are the only signs, 
and that the things signified by them are both the natural and 
the mystical body of Christ, both his flesh and his Church. As 
the word ' offer' is a word of some latitude, he supposes both to 
be offered in the Eucharist ; one by way of memorial before God, 
and the other as a real and spiritual sacrifice unto God. 

Having thus traced this matter down through four centuries, 
and part of the fifth, I cannot think it of moment to descend 
lower, since the earliest are of principal value, and are alone 
sufficient. The Fathers were very wise and excellent men, saw 
very clearly what many learned moderns have had the misfortune 
to overlook, and agreed perfectly well in many points, about 
which the moderns have been strangely divided. The Fathers 
well understood, that to make Christ's natural body the real 
sacrifice of the Eucharist, would not only be absurd in reason, 
but highly presumptuous and profane; and that to make the 
outward symbols a proper sacrifice, a material sacrifice, would be 

trum in mensa Domini positum est, sumus. . . . Recolite enim, quia panis 

mysterium Domini accipitis. . . .Ni- non fit de uno grano, sed de multis.' 

hil hie de nostro adseramus ; ipsum Augiistiu. serm. cexxix. p. 976. Cp. 

Apostolum item audiaraus : cum ergo serm. cclxxii. p. 1103. 

de isto Sacramento loqueretur, ait; m Harduin. de Sacramento Al- 

TJnus panis, unum corpus, multi taris, cap. x. 

xn. in a Sacrificial Vieiv, 349 

entirely contrary to Gospel principles, degrading the Christian 
sacrifice into a Jewish one, yea, and making it much lower and 
meaner than the Jewish, both in value and dignity n . The right 
way therefore was, to make the sacrifice spiritual : and it could 
be no other upon Gospel principles. Thus both extremes were 
avoided, all perplexities removed, and truth and godliness 

So then here I may take leave of the ancients, as to the pre- 
sent article. The whole of the matter is well comprised and 
clearly expressed in a very few words, by as judicious a Divine 
as any our Church has had : ' We offer up our alms ; we offer 
up our prayers, our praises, and ourselves : and all these we 
offer up in the virtue and consideration of Christ's sacrifice, 
represented before us [I would only add, " and before God"] by 
way of remembrance or commemoration ; nor can it be proved, 
that the ancients did more than this : this whole service was 
their Christian sacrifice, and this is ours .' A learned foreigner 
has likewise very briefly and justly expressed the nature of the 
Christian sacrifice ; whose words I have thrown to the bottom 
of the page P, for the learned reader. 

I shall now shut up this chapter with two or three short 
corollaries, which naturally offer, and may be of some use. 

i. The first is, that this sacrificial view of the Eucharist 
squares exactly with the federal view before given. For if it be 
really a spiritual sacrifice, in or by which every faithful commu- 

" How contemptibly the Romanists P ' Oblatio omnis quae fit a creden- 

speak of a material sacrifice in that tibussubNovoTestamento, est incru- 

view, may be seen in Bishop Morton, enta, et vero castissima, et simplicis- 

(p. 438,) who has collected their sen- sima, quia spiritualis. Sive quis se 

timents upon it. ipsum, sive trui/uo suum, affectum, om- 

Archbishop Sharpe, vol. vii. serm. nesquesuas facilitates et actiones Deo 
xi. p. 253. If any one is disposed to offerat ut sacrificium ; sive alia a\i- 
trace this matter down, even to the artt, . ministri verbi, qui in nobis con- 
dark ages, he will find that most of vertendis laborarunt, nos offerant 
the Greek and Latin Liturgies con- Deo ; sive preces, (i/xapicrrias, suppli- 
tain the same notion with the Fathers, cationes nostras feramus ad Deum, 
of the spiritual sacrifice in the Eucha- ubique eadem ratio : nullus hie fun- 
rist. See Covel, Acc.of Gr. Church, ditur sanguis, nihil committitur vio- 
pref. p. 47 ; book, pp. 36, 41, 46, 53, lentum ; actio tota est spiritualis, et 
67,68, 175. Deyling. Observat. Mis- \oyiicf).' Vitringa in Isa. Ixvi. 21, 
cellan. p. 310, &c. p. 951. 

35 The Preparation proper for CHAP. 

nicant devotes himself entirely to God ; and if the sacerdotal 
offering up our Lord's mystical body be (as St. Austin explains 
this matter) a sacerdotal devoting all the faithful joining it, to 
God's service, and to God's glory : then may we again justly 
conclude, that the sacramental service is a federal, as well as a 
sacrificial solemnity : because, in this case, the administrator's 
devoting the communicants, and their devoting themselves to 
God, is tantamount to a solemn renewing former engagements 
or covenants made with him, under such symbols as God has 
appointed, and promised to ratify on his part. 

2. From hence may be understood, how Christians, at large, 
are priests unto God <i : for every one that sacrificeth, is so far 
a priest. Therefore Justin Martyr represents Christians in 
common as so many priests, offering their sacrifices in the Eu- 
charist 1 ". And Isidorus, so late as the fifth century, does the 
like 8 , reckoning every man a priest, when he offers up his own 
body, or himself, a sacrifice unto God, by sacrificing his lusts and 
passions. Nevertheless, the proper officers, who minister in holy 
things, and who offer up to God both the sacrifices and sacrificers, 
are priests in a more eminent and emphatical sense ; as Isidorus 
observes in the same place, and as the reason of the thing itself 
sufficiently evidences *. I may further note, that as Christians 
at large were considered as priests, on account of their offering 
spiritual sacrifices, so their consecration to such their priesthood 
was supposed to be performed in or by Baptism : or, in other 
words, their baptism was their consecration u . 

3. A third corollary is, that the Socinians, or others, who 

i l Pet. ii. 5, 9. Rev. i. 6; v. 10 ; extema Ecclesiae iro\ireia fundato.' 

xx 6. Hunc titulum sibi peculiar! modo 

r Justin. Mart. Dial. p. 386. Cp. vindicant.' Vitringa in Isa. Ixvi. 21. 

Origen. in Levit. horn. is. p. 236. p. 951. Cp. Vitring. in Apocalyps. 

8 Isidorus Pelusiot. lib. iii. ep. 75. p. 335. N.B. This argument is dis- 

p. 284. cussed at large by Mr. Dodwell, De 

* ' Cum omnes credentes N.T. sint Jure Laico Sacerdotali, and by other 

sacerdotes respectu status spiritualis, tracts going along with his. 
et juris appropinquandi Deo in sum- u Tertullian. de Monogam. cap. 

mo Pontifice Jesu ; ministri verbi, vii. p. 529. Origen. in Levit. horn, 

dispensatores mysteriorum Dei, qua- ix. 238. CyrilL Hierosol. Catech. 

tenus a Deo elect! sunt, ut circa xviii. cap. 33. p. 301. Ambrosiaster. 

sacra publica versentur, respectu de Sacram. lib. iv. cap. i. p. 365. ed. 

quodam oeconomico et externo, in Bened. 

xiii. the Holy Communion. 351 

reject both the sacrificial and federal view, do not only causelessly 
depreciate a venerable sacrament and sacrifice, but at the same 
time do the greatest disservice imaginable to practical religion. 
For as the sacrificial notion of the Eucharist, here explained, 
carries in it the most instructive and compendious lesson of 
Christian practice, so does the federal notion of the same carry 
in it the strongest engagements to bind us for ever to it. The 
removing these awakening hints, and the dissolving these sacred 
ties, under fair and smooth pretences of supporting practical 
Christianity, is betraying great want of judgment or want of 
sincerity; because there cannot be a more dangerous or more 
fatal way of subverting, by little and little, all true Christian 


Of the Preparation proper for the HOLY COMMUNION. 

IF we have hitherto gone upon sure grounds, with respect to 
the nature, ends, and uses of the holy Communion, there can be 
no doubt made, but that so sacred and so salutary an institution 
ought to be held in great reverence, and to be observed with all 
joy and thankfulness, tempered with godly fear. If we consider 
it either as a Divine ordinance coeval with Christianity, and per- 
fective of it, or as a solemn memorial of God made man, or as an 
instrument whereby God vouchsafes to receive us, Christ to dwell 
in us, and the Holy Ghost to shed his blessed influences upon us ; 
or if we consider it as the noblest part of Christian worship, the 
renewing of our covenant with God, the sacrificing of the heart, 
and the devoting of the affections, and all that we have, to his 
service, and to his glory; or if we further consider it as a badge 
of our most ioly profession, and as a band or cement of union? 
whereby we abide in Christ, and have fellowship with all the 
family of heaven x ; in which soever of these views we contem- 
plate this holy ceremony, it must appear to be a matter of 
infinite concern to us, and highly deserving our most affectionate 
and devout regards. How we ought to express our esteem of it, 

1 Heb. xii. 22 24. 

352 The Preparation proper for CHAP. 

is the next thing to be inquired into : and the general rule here 
is, that we take care to do it in such a way, as may best answer 
those heavenly and salutary purposes for which this holy 
Sacrament was ordained. Our esteem or disesteem of it will be 
seen by our conduct ; by our frequenting or not frequenting it, 
by our preparing or not preparing for it, as also by our manner 
of behaviour at the time of receiving, or after. My present con- 
cern is with the preparatory part. There is something of a 
preparation of heart, mind, and ways, required for all religious 
offices y ; much more for this, which is the flower and perfection 
of all : and now the only remaining question is, what preparation 
is here requisite, or whereof it consists. The nature and ends of 
the institution, laid down above, will be our sure marks of 
direction, and cannot mislead us, if carefully attended to. Let 
us come to particulars. 

i. Baptism, it is well known, must go before the Eucharist, 
like as Circumcision was previous to the Passover. A person 
must be admitted into covenant first, in order to renew ; must be 
initiated, in order to be perfected ; must be born into the Christian 
life, before he takes in the additional food proper to support and 
increase it. Of this there can be no dispute, and so I need not 
say much of it. There is an instance in antiquity, as high as the 
third century, of a person who had long been a communicant, and 
who afterwards found reason to doubt whether he had been 
validly baptized, and thereupon scrupled the coming again to the 
Lord's table. His bishop advised him, in that case, (considering 
how long he had been a communicant, and honestly all the time,) 
to go on without scruple ; not presuming to give him Baptism, 
which now seemed to be superseded by the long and frequent use 
of this other Sacrament 7 . The case was very particular, and 
the resolution, probably, wise and just : both the scruple on one 
hand, and the determination on the other, (made with some 

y Eccles. v. i, 2. I Sam. vii. 3. rantly should happen to receive the 

2 Chron. xxxv. 6. Communion, he should forthwith be 

* Euseb. Eccl. Hist. lib. vii cap. 9. baptized, pursuant to such call of God. 

But Timothy, afterwards Bishop of Timoth. Alexandr. Can. I. Hard. p. 

the same see, (about A. D. 380,) de- 1192. torn, i, 
termined, that if a catechumen igno- 

xiii. the Holy Communion. 353 

hesitancy, and scarce satisfactory to the party,) shew how acknow- 
ledged a principle of the Church it then was, that Baptism is 
ordinarily a most essential part of the qualification required for 
receiving the holy Communion. Confirmation besides, is highly 
expedient a , but Baptism is strictly necessary. 

2. A competent knowledge of what the Communion means is 
another previous qualification. St. Paul teaches, that a person, 
coming to the Lord's table, should examine or approve himself, 
and that he should discern the Lord's body b : both which do 
suppose a competent knowledge of what the Sacrament means, 
and of what it requires . And from thence may be drawn a 
very just and weighty argument against infant communion. But 
I return to the point in hand. As to the measure of the com- 
petent knowledge required for receiving the Communion, it must 
of course vary, according to the various opportunities, abilities, 
circumstances of the parties concerned ; to be judged of by them- 
selves, with the assistance of their proper guides. Great care 
was anciently taken in instructing the adults, called catechumens, 
in order to Baptism : something of like kind will be always 
proper, in such circumstances as ours, for the preparing persons 
for the first time of receiving the holy Communion. 

3. A sound and right faith, as to the main substance of the 
Christian religion, is another previous qualification for this Sa- 
crament. For whether we consider it as a renewal of our bap- 
tismal profession and covenant, which is engaging to observe the 
Gospel terms; or whether we consider it as an instrument of 
pardon and grace, and a pledge of the inheritance among the 
saints in light ; sound faith must undoubtedly be required, to 
answer such ends and uses of it. Scripture has not directly 
said so, as there was no occasion for it ; since the very nature of 
the thing, taking in Scripture principles, very fully and plainly 
declares it. Accordingly, we find, as early almost as we have 
any records left, that true and sound faith was very particularly 

a See the Rubric at the end of our p. 331. 
Order of Confirmation, and the Con- b I Cor. xi. 28, 29 
stitutions of Archbishop Peckham, c 'OpQbs fiios, apa. naBfofi TJ? KaQri- 
A.D. 1281. Spelm. Concil. torn. ii. KOWTT?. Clem. Alex. Strom, i. p. 318. 

A a 

354 The Preparation proper for CHAP. 

required in those that came to the Lord's table d . Besides a 
right faith in the general, a particular belief with respect to the 
graces and benefits of a worthy reception of this Sacrament, was 
anciently, as well as reasonably, judged to be a previous qualifi- 
cation for it, requisite to render it salutary to the recipient. It 
would be tedious to produce authorities for it, and therefore I 
choose to refer the reader to the collections of that kind already 
made to our hands e . 

4. Above all things, repentance ought to be looked upon as a 
most essential qualification for a due reception of the holy Com- 
munion. All the ends and uses of the Sacrament declare it : the 
reason of the thing itself loudly proclaims it. For, without that, 
what is covenanting but playing the hypocrite? What is devoting 
ourselves to God at his table but lying and dissembling ? How is 
it possible to hold communion at once with God and Baal, with 
Christ and Belial ? Or how can the Spirit of God, and the spirit 
that worketh in the children of disobedience, dwell together 1 It 
is plain therefore, that repentance, in some degree or other, and 
a heart turned to God, is essentially necessary to make the 
Sacrament salutary, yea, and to prevent its proving hurtful to 
the receiver. 

If we look into the ancients, upon this head, we shall find them 
with united voice declaring, that repentance is absolutely necessary 
to make a worthy receiver. Justin Martyr specifies it among 
the previous qualifications, that the communicant shall be one 
who 'lives according as Christ has commanded f .' Clemens, of 
the same century, intimates, that a good lifeS is requisite to a 
due receiving, and to prevent the receiving unworthily in St. 
Paul's sense; quoting i Cor. xi. 27, 28. Origen interprets the 
same words to mean, that the Sacrament must not be taken 

d Kcu Ji rpo<(>)) avrrj KaXftrai trap' Lord's table. Vid. Apostol. Consti- 

fjfiiv vx a P I<rT ^ a > ^ s ovStvl a\\y fj.fra- tut. lib. viii. cap. 12. p. 403. 

crx^f Q6v ("ff-ri, ff r<$ TTtarfvovn a\7]0rj e Bingham, book xv. c. 8. a. 8. 

elvat TO df5i5a.yfj.fva \nr' TI/J.WV. Just. f OVTOIS PIOVVTI us 6 Xpurrbs irap- 

Mart. p. 96. Hitherto belongs the eSwKfi'. Justin. Apol. i. p. 96. 

noted proclamation anciently made B Clemens Alex. 'Op6bs $ioy, a/uo 

by the Deacons, before the Commu- na&fjcrfi TJ? KaOrtKov<rr). Strom, i. p. 

nion began : M^ TJS TUV trfpoSA^tav' 318. 
Let no misbeliever come to the 

xiii. the Holy Communion. 355 

with a 'soul defiled and polluted with sin V St. Cyprian also 
more than once represents it as receiving unworthily, when a man 
comes to the Lord's table, before he has expiated his offences, 
confessed his crimes, purged his conscience, and appeased the anger 
of God '. All which shews, that he understood the text of St. 
Paul, not merely of the manner of behaviour at receiving, but of 
the previous qualifications of the receiver. In the same general 
way is the Apostle interpreted by the ancient commentators on 
that chapter K But because some persons had made a distinction 
between being unworthy to receive, and receiving unworthily ; to 
cut off all evasion sought for in that nicety, it was replied ; that 
if the Apostle had restrained even the worthy from receiving 
unworthily, he had much more restrained every unworthy person 
from receiving at all ; being that such a one is not capable of 
receiving worthily, while he continues such, that is, while he goes 
on in his vices 1 . There is scarce any one principle more univer- 
sally agreed upon among the ancients, than this, that repentance 
and newness of life is a necessary preparation or qualification for 
the holy Communion, and is implied in worthy receiving. 

It has been pleaded, in abatement, that the Apostle, by his 
caution against receiving unworthily, intended only to censure 
all irreverent behaviour at the table, and that the censure or 

h 'Ne in anima contaminata et corpori ejus et sanguini,' &c. Cypr. 

peccatis polluta Dominici corporis de Laps. p. 186. Cp. pp. 19, 20, 

Sacramenta percipias. Quicunque 141. edit. Bened. 
enim manducaverit, inquit, panem, k Chrysostom. in loc. p. 301, et de 

et biberit calicem Domini indigne, Poenit. Horn. vii. p. 326. torn. ii. ed. 

reus erit, &c. . . . Cibus iste sanctus Bened. Theodoret, Oecumenius, Da- 

non estcommunis omnium, nee cujus- mascene, Theophylact, Pelagius in- 

cunque indigiii, sed sanctorum est.' ter Opp. Hieronym , Ambrosiaster, 

Origen. in Lev. Horn. xiii. p. 257. Cassiodorus complex, p. 37. Cp. 

Cp. in Matt. p. 254. ed. Huet. Gregor. Nyssen. de Perfect. Chris- 

1 ' Contumacibus et pervicacibus tian. p. 718. 

comminatur et deuuntiat, dicens : ' ' Quidam sane dicunt, quia non 

Quicunque ederit panem, aut biberit indignum, sed indigne accipientem 

calicem Domini indigne, reus erit revocat a sancto. Si ergo etiam 

corporis et sanguinis Domini. Spretis dignus indigne accedens retrahitur, 

his omnibus atque contemptis, ante quanto magis indignus, qui non po- 

expiata delicta, ante exomologesim test accipere digne ? Unde oportet 

factam criminis, ante purgatam con- otiosum cessare a vitiis, ut sanctum 

scientiam sacrificio et manu sacerdo- Domini corpus sancte percipiat.' Pe- 

tis, ante offensam placatam indignan- lagius in loc. 
tis Domini et minantis, vis infertur 

A a 2 

The Preparation proper for CHAP. 

admonition there given concerns rather the manner of receiving, 
than the previous qualifications of the receiver. But to this 
pretext sufficient replies have been made by the more judicious ". 
I may briefly observe, i. That if the Apostle had said nothing 
at all of unworthy receiving, yet the reason of the thing would 
shew, that the receiving of the Communion with dispositions 
repugnant to the end and use of it, is receiving unworthily, and 
offering an affront to its author. 2. That the Apostle's reproof 
to the Corinthians, in that chapter, was not levelled barely 
against an irreverent manner of receiving, but against the ill spirit 
and the unchristian temper, with which they came to the Lord's 
table : they were contentious, and full of animosities, split into 
factions and parties ; and from thence arose all their other dis- 
orders. Therefore the Apostle both began and concluded his 
admonition P with particular cautions against the spirit of division 
then reigning amongst them ; a temper very improper for a feast 
of love and amity. 3. There is no reason for restraining the 
Apostle's general rules, laid down upon a special occasion, to that 
particular case only, especially when the reason of them extends 
equally to more. The Apostle says, Whosoever shall receive 
unworthily, &c., not confining what he says of it to this way or 
that. If it be receiving unworthily, in any ways whatever, his 
words are general enough to comprehend them all : and so are 
his other words ; Let every one examine himself, and then eat, &c., 
and let him discern, discriminate, esteem, reverence the Lord's 
body. Therefore Chrysostom, upon the place 1, highly extols the 
wisdom of the Apostle, in making such excellent use of a parti- 
cular case, as thereupon to lay down general rules for all cases 
of like nature, for the standing use of the Church in all times to 
come. Accordingly the judicious Theodoret takes notice, that 
the Apostle in verse the 27th, where he speaks of receiving un- 

m See Mr. Locke on i Cor. xi. 28. i. n, 12. 
Arth. Bury's Constant Communicant, P i Cor. xi. 33, 34. 
p. 250, &.c. i Chrysostom in I Cor. xi. Horn. 

" Jenkins, Remarks on some xxviii. p. 300, &c. Cp. Damascen. 

Books, pp. 140-145. Le Clerc, Bib- in loc. p. 102. Oecumenius, p. 532. 

lioth. Chois. torn. xiii. p. 96. Wol- Theophylact, p. 260. Compare Jen- 

n'us, Cur. Crit. in I Cor. xi. 28. kins, pp. 142, 143. 

" i Cor. xi. 1 8, 19. Compare I Cor. 

xiii. the Holy Communion. 357 

worthily, obliquely rebuked the ambitious, and the fornicators, 
and those also who had eaten of things offered unto idols; and in 
short, all that come to the Communion with a guilty conscience 1 ". 
4. Let it be considered, whether such as the Apostle forbids us. 
to eat with 8 , and whether those whom the Apostle censures as 
' partakers of the table of devils V and those whom he elsewhere 
describes as making one body with harlots u , could be capable, 
while so abiding, of receiving worthily 1 If they could not, then 
the general rule of the Apostle, laid down in i Cor. xi. about 
receiving unworthily, must be understood to extend further than 
to the particular disorders which occasioned it. But if it be 
said, that such, so abiding, might notwithstanding receive wor- 
thily, then these absurdities will follow ; that persons who are 
not fit for Christians to eat with, or who are communicants of 
devils ; or who are incapable of being living members of Christ, 
or temples of the Holy Ghost, are yet capable of worthily receiving 
that symbolical body and blood of Christ, which are appointed to 
strengthen our union with him, and which suppose men to be 
living members of him, at their coming to receive. 

Add to this, that St. Paul himself has elsewhere laid down a 
general rule, obliging all Christians to come clean to the Chris- 
tian passover, drawn from the consideration of what was pre- 
scribed Math respect to the Jewish one x . For if the feast there 
mentioned does not directly mean the eucharistical feast, but 
the whole Christian life considered as a feast of holiness ; yet 
the reason there given will hold more strongly for those particular 
seasons when we are actually celebrating the memorial of 'Christ 
our passover Lamb,' as ' sacrificed for us.' For, as at all times, 
so then more especially, ought we to ' purge out the old leaven,' 
and to keep the sacred feast with the ' unleavened bread of 
sincerity and truth.' 

Upon the whole, it must be allowed, that St. Paul's general 
rule will 'by parity of reason reach further than the particular 
cases there mentioned, and must be understood to exclude all 
impenitent offenders. This the Socinians themselves make no 

r Theodoret in i Cor. xi. 27. B i Cor. v. n. * i Cor. x. 10, 21. 

u i Cor. vi. 15, 16. * i Cor. v. 7, 8. 

358 The Preparation proper for CHAP. 

scruple to allow y ; as indeed it is so clear a case, that there can 
be but very little room left for any reasonable dispute. 

It remains still to be considered, what repentance really 
means, or wherein it consists. In the general, it means a new 
heart, or a serious resolution to amend what we find amiss, to 
the utmost of our power, and a deliberate intention to live a life 
of holiness 2 for the future; squaring our conduct, as near as 
human infirmities will permit, by the unerring rule of God's 
commandments. To be more particular, there are four principal 
articles, which the ancients, in this case, most insisted upon, as 
previous qualifications for receiving the holy Communion ; I 
shall consider them one by one, but as briefly as may be. 

i. One was, restitution or reparation for any wrongs done to 
others in their persons, estate, or good name, to the utmost of 
our ability a . This is but common justice, or moral honesty, and 
therefore must be looked upon as an essential article of amend- 
ment. It would lead me too far, to undertake here to state the 
exact rules or measures of it : those may be learned from sound 
casuists, who have professedly weighed and considered the sub- 
ject b . In ordinary cases, an honest mind will not much need 
an instructor, but every well disposed person may be his own 
best casuist. All I shall hint is, that for public wrongs public 
satisfaction is most proper, as being perhaps the only one that 
can sufficiently repair the public injury : but for secret wrongs, 
the more secret the reparation is, so much the better, other 
circumstances being equal ; because so the wrong is repaired, 
and at the same time ill blood prevented, future suspicions 
obviated, peace and amity secured. 

To this head belongs what our Lord says ; ' If thou bring thy 
gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath 

y Crellius, Etbic. Christian, lib. iii. let him not come near. In Hebr. 

c. 10. p. 354. Slichting. in i Cor. Horn. xvii. p. 585. See also above, 

xi. 28. p. 58. Przipcovius in loc. p. 263. 

1 The ancient way was to proclaim See Bingham, b. xv. c. 8. sect, 

before the service be;}an, ayia TO?* 10. 

ayiois. Cyrill. Hierosol. Mystag. v. p. b Bishop Tillotson's Posth. Serm. 

331. A form occurring in all the old cxvi. cxvii. p. 82 &c. fol. edit. Pla- 

Liturgies, and which Chrysostom in- cete, Christian Ca>ui.-t, or Treatise on 

terprets to mean, Et ns OVK itrrlv Conscience, book i. chap 20, 21, 22. 

$) irpoari: w, If a man is not holy, Abridgment of Morality. 

xni. the Holy Communion. 359 

ought against thee ; leave there thy gift before the altar, and go 
thy way ; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and 
offer thy gift c .' The Lord's Supper was not instituted when 
these words were spoken : nevertheless they are applicable to it, 
in a view to the general reason on which the rule stands ; and 
they have been often so applied both by ancients and moderns. 
Mr. Mede has well proved, that the precept is evangelical d , 
though worded in Jewish terms, suited to the time wherein it 
was given. The disciples of our Lord (that is, believers at large, 
to whom that Divine sermon was directed e ) were Jews and Chris- 
tians both in one, and therefore could not be properly addressed 
in any language, but what might competently suit them in such 
their double capacity. The like was the case with respect to the 
Lord's Prayer, which though a Christian prayer, was yet formed 
in such general terms, as might indifferently serve a religious 
Jew, at the time when it was given. I say then, that the precept 
delivered by our Lord, about the great duty of reparation to be 
made to every injured brother, before we offer to God, though an 
evangelical precept, was yet so worded as to comport with the 
then present circumstances of the persons to whom it was 
directed. When circumstances came to be altered, the general 
reason still continued the same, and the application of it was 
easy and obvious to every capacity. 

Irenaeus quotes the text, and adapts it to Christian circum- 
stances in a very just and natural way. Gifts he interprets to 
mean Christian worship, alms, and oblations : and by altar he 
understands the high altar in heaven f . Tertullian, in like man- 
ner, accommodates it to the case of Christians coming to offer up 
their prayers to God ; intimating, that they ought first to be at 
peace with their offended brethren, and to bring with them a 
forgiving temper, as they hoped to be forgiven ?. Both parts 
are true : but the latter appears foreign with respect t_> this 

c Matth. v. 23, 24. Mount, vol. i. serm. ii. iii. p. 27, &c. 

d Mede, Disc. xlvi. p. 357, &c. edit. f Jren. lib. iv. cap. 18. pp. 250, 

1664. Compare Johnson's Propit. 252. Cp. Pfaffius, pp. 57, 58. 
Oblat. p. 19, &c., and Lewis's An- s Tertullian. de Poenitent. cap. xii. 

swer to Unbloody Sacrifice, p. 32. p. 147 ; de Orat. cap. x. p. 133 ; et 

e See Blair on the Sermon in the contr. Marc. lib. iv. cap. 9. p. 420. 

360 The Preparation proper for CHAP. 

text, which relates not to pardoning others who have injured us, 
but rather to the seeking pardon where we have injured. How- 
ever, as the two parts are near allied, it was easy to blend ideas, 
and to run both into one; as several other Fathers did. Cyprian 
also accommodates the precept to Christian circumstances, inter- 
preting the gift of prayers, which ought to be offered with a pacific 
temper of mind h . Elsewhere he applies it to the eucharistical 
prayers and services . Eusebius and Cyril apply the text much 
in the same way k . And Origen interprets the gift to mean 
prayer 1 . The Constitutions called Apostolical interpret 'gift' 
of prayer, praise, and thanksgiving, and the precept of enter- 
taining no enmity against others, and taking what care we can 
that they may have no just ground of complaint against us ni . 
Chrysostorn accommodates the precept to the prayers and alms 
offered at the holy Communion, which would not be accepted, if 
not brought in charity, and with a peaceful mind n . In another 
Homily , he presses the point somewhat further, and says many 
good things of the care we ought to take to make up differences, 
if possible, even with those who without any just cause are our 
enemies ; that so we may restore them, and heal their sores, 
and gain them over to good will. All which is right, if tempered 
with the rules of Christian prudence, and not strained so far, as 
to make well disposed and truly peaceable persons stay away 
from the Lord's table upon needless scruples; arising either 
from the irreconcilable temper of others, or from a want of due 
discernment of what is safe, prudent, or proper, under such or 
such circumstances. Improper or indiscreet overtures made by 
the offended party towards an offender, may often widen the 
breach which they mean to heal, and may increase the mischief, 
instead of curing it. 

Jerome, upon the text, appears rather argute than solid ; 
where he comments to this effect, if I understand him : 'It is 

h Cyprian, de Oratione, p. 211. "> Constitut. Apostol. lib. ii. cap. 

1 Cyprian de Unit. Eccl. p. 198. 53. p. 260. 

k Eusebius deVit. Constant, lib. iv. n Chrysostom. in Matt. Horn. xvi. 

cap. 41. Cyrill. Hierosol. Mystag. v. p. 217. ed. Bened. torn. vii. 

p. 316. Chrysostom. de Simul. Horn. xx. 

1 Origen. de Orat. p. 198. p. 206, &c. torn. ii. 

xiii. the Holy Communion. 361 

not said, if you take anything amiss of your brother, but if your 
brother takes anything amiss of you ; to make the terms of 
reconciliation so much the harder. So long as we are not able 
to pacify the party, I know not whether we ought to offer our 
gifts unto God P.' This is straining the point too far, if it means 
anything more than the using all safe, prudent, and reasonable 
endeavours to remove causeless offences, where a person is 
ignorant or froward. 

St. Austin, who had a cooler head than Jerome, and was a 
more exact casuist, has given the justest and clearest account of 
this text that I have met* with ; perhaps with a design to take off 
such scruples as Jerome's account might have raised. As to the 
gift mentioned, he interprets it of prophecy, that is, doctrine, and 
prayers, and hymns, and the like spiritual services i. And as to 
the precept, he explains it thus : ' if we call to mind that our 
brother has ought against us ; that is, if we have any way injured 
him ; for then it is that he has something against us. But, if 
he has injured us, then we have something against him : in 
which case, there is no occasion to go to him for reconcilement. 
You would not ask pardon of the man that has done you an 
injury ; it is sufficient that you forgive him, as you desire 
forgiveness at God's hands for what you have offended in. We 
are to go therefore to be reconciled, when it comes into our 
mind, that haply we may have some way injured our brother r .' 
The sum then of all is, that if we are certain that we have done 
any man an injury in his person, estate, or good name, or that 

P 'Non dixit, Si tu liabes illiquid p. 167. edit. Bened. torn. iii. 

adversus fratrein tuum, sed, Si frater r 'Siinmentemvenerit.quodaliquid 

tuus habet aliquid adversum te ; ut habeat adversum nos frater ; id est, 

duriorreconciliationis tibi impoiiatur si nos eum in aliquo laesimus : tune 

necessitas. Quamdiu ilium placare eniin ipse habet adversum nos. Nam 

non possumus, neseio an consequen- nos adversus ilium habemus, si ille 

ter munera nosfcra offeramus Deo.' nos laesit : ubi non opus est pergere 

Hieron. in loc. torn. iv. p. 16. edit. adreconciliationem;nonenim veniain 

Bened. postulabis abeoqui tibi fecit injuriam, 

'i ' Quodlibet enini munus offerimus sed tantum dimittes, sicut tibi dimitti 

Deo, sive prophetiam, sive doctrinam, a Domino cupis, quod ipse commi- 

sive orationern, sive hymnum, sive seris. Pergendum est ergo ad recon- 

psalmum, et si quid tale aliud spiritu- ciliationeni, cum in mentem venerit, 

alium donorum animo occurrit,' &c. quod nos forte fratrem in ali quo Jaesi- 

Augustin. de Senn. Domini in Mont, mus.' Augustin. ibid. 

3^2 The Preparation proper for CHAP. 

we have given just cause of offence, it is our duty and business 
to make reparation, and to sue first for reconcilement : or if we 
are not certain, but probably suspect that we have been guilty 
that way, the same rule will still hold in proportion. But if we 
have good reason to judge that the person has really injured 
us, or has causelessly and captiously taken offence where none 
was given, then be it to himself : there is nothing in this text 
obliging an innocent person, in such a case, to make the first 
step towards reconcilement, or to suspend his offerings on any 
such scruple. There may, in some particular circumstances, be 
a kind of debt of charity, and Christian condescension, lying 
upon the injured party, to endeavour to reclaim and pacify 
the offender by soft and healing ways: but as that is a very 
nice affair, and the office such as many are not fit for, there 
lies no strict obligation in such a case, or at least not upon 
Christians at large, but upon those only who are peculiarly fitted 
for it. Therefore it falls not properly under the question now 
in hand, nor within the precept of the text, which is general, 
extending equally to all Christians. From the summary view 
here given of what the ancients thought of those words of our 
Lord, (besides the clearing an important case of conscience, 
which I chiefly aimed at,) it may be noted by the way, that the 
gift there mentioned was understood of spiritual saci'ifice only, 
and the altar also of course must have been spiritual, white con- 
sidered as an altar : which I take notice of as a confirmation 
of what hath been advanced in a preceding chapter. But I 

2. As making restitution for any offences we have committed, 
is one necessary article of sacramental preparation, so is a readi- 
ness to forgive any offences committed against us another as 
necessary an article, and much insisted upon by the ancient 
churches 8 . This is a rule laid down by our blessed Lord in his 
Gospel, and made an express condition of our own forgiveness, 
and left us, for the greater caution, as an article of the Lord's 
Prayer to be daily repeated. All the difficulty lies in clearing 
and ascertaining the true and full meaning of the forgiveness 
* See Bingham, xv. 8. 13. 

xin. the Holy Communion. 363 

required. Our Lord in one place says, 'If thy brother trespass 
against thee, rebuke him, and if he repent, forgive him ; ' and so 
again and again, as often as he repents, forgive *. May we then 
revenge ourselves upon an enemy, if he does not repent 1 No, 
by no means : vengeance is God's sole right u : man has nothing 
to do with it. Even magistrates, who, in some sense, are re- 
vengers, or avengers, to execute wrath x , yet, strictly speaking, 
are not appointed to dispense vengeance. They do not, they can- 
not award punishments in just proportion to demerits, as God 
can do : but they are appointed to act for the safety of the State ; 
and what they do is a kind of self-defence, in a public capacity, 
rather than a dispensing of vengeance. So that even they, pro- 
perly speaking, are not commissioned to revenge : much less can 
any private persons justly claim any right to it. Forgiveness, 
if understood in opposition to revenge, is an unlimited duty, 
knows no bounds or measures, is not restrained to any kind or 
number of offences, nor to any condition of repenting : but all 
offences must be forgiven, in that sense, though not repented of, 
though ever so cruelly or so maliciously carried on and persisted 
in. Therefore the forgiveness which our Lord speaks of, as 
limited to the repentance of the party offending, can mean only 
the receiving a person into such a degree of friendship or 
intimacy, as he before had : a thing not safe, nor reasonable, 
unless he shews some tokens of sorrow for his fault, and some 
signs of a sincere intention to do so no m'ore. Forgive him in 
such a sense, as to meditate no revenge, to wish him well, and 
to pray for him, and even to do him good in a way prudent and 
proper : but admit him not into confidence, nor trust yourself 
with him, till he repents : for that would be acting too far 
against the great law of self-preservation. Only take care, on 
the other hand, not to be over distrustful, nor to stand upon the 
utmost proofs of his relenting sincerity, but rather risk some 
relapses. This, I think, in the general, is a just account of 
Gospel-forgiveness y. 

t Luke xvii. 3, 4. Matt, xviii. 21, x Eom. xiii. 4. 

22, y Compare Abp. Tillotson, Serm. 

u Deut. xxxii. 35. Rom. xii. 19. xxxiii. p. 392. vol. i. fol. edit. Tower- 

Heb. x. 30. son on the Sacraments, p. 298. 

3^4 The f reparation proper for CHAP. 

But to prevent all needless scruples, I may explain it a little 
further, in some distinct articles : i . Gospel -forgiveness interferes 
not with proper discipline, nor the bringing offenders in a legal 
way to public justice. An informer may prosecute, a witness 
accuse, a jury bring in guilty, a judge condemn, and an execu- 
tioner despatch a criminal, without any proper malevolence 
towards the party, but in great benevolence towards mankind. 
2. Gospel -forgiveness interferes not with a person's prosecuting 
his own just rights, in a legal way, against one that has griev- 
ously injured him in his estate, person, or good name : for a 
man's barely doing himself justice, or recovering a right, is 
not taking revenge. A person wrongs me, perhaps, of a con- 
siderable sum : I forgive him the wrong, so as to bear him no 
malice ; but I forgive him not the debt, because I am no way 
obliged to resign my own property or maintenance to an inju- 
rious invader. 3. Gospel-forgiveness interferes not with a just 
aversion to, or abhorrence of, some very ill men ; liars, suppose, 
adulterers, fornicators, extortioners, impostors, blasphemers, or 
the like : for such hatred of aversion is a very different thing 
from hatred of malevolence, may be without it, and ought to be 
so. We cannot love monsters of iniquity with any love of 
complacency, neither does God delight in them as such : but 
still we may love them with a love of benevolence and compas- 
sion, as God also does z . 4. Neither does Gospel-forgiveness 
interfere with any proper degrees of love or esteem. A man may 
love his enemies in a just degree, and yet love his friends better, 
and one friend more than another, in proportion to their worth, 
or nearness, or other circumstances. Our Lord loved all his 
disciples, even Judas not excepted : but he loved one more 
particularly, who was therefore called ' the disciple whom Jesus 
loved a ;' and he loved the rest with distinction, and in propor- 
tionate degrees. 5. I have before hinted, that Gospel -forgive- 
ness interferes not with rejecting enemies from our confidence, 
or refusing to admit them into our bosoms. We may wish them 
well, pray for them, and do them good ; but still at a proper 

1 See Towerson on the Sacraments, pp. 298, 299. 
John xiii. 23 : six. 26 ; xx. 2 ; xxi. 7, 20. 

xiii. the Holy Communion. 365 

distance, such as a just regard for our own safety, or reasons of 
peace, piety, and charity may require. 6. I may add, that cases 
perhaps may be supposed, where even the duty of praying for 
them may be conceived to cease. ' There is a sin unto death : 
I do not say that he shall pray for it V But in this case, they 
are not to be considered merely as private enemies, but as public 
nuisances, and as offending of malicious wickedness, not against 
man only, but against God and religion. Indeed, charity forbids 
us to pass such a censure, except it be upon very sure grounds ; 
which perhaps we can but seldom, if ever, have : but I was 
willing to mention this case, for the better clearing up St. Paul's 
conduct in this very article. It may deserve our notice, that he 
prayed for those who had meanly, and through human infirmity, 
deserted him in the day of trial, that the sin might not be ' laid 
to their charge c :' in the same breath almost, speaking of Alex- 
ander, a wicked apostate, who had most maliciously opposed him 
and the Gospel, he says ; ' The Lord reward him according to 
his works <V He would not honour him so far, as to pray for 
his conversion or forgiveness : or he knew his case to be too 
desperate to admit of either. Nevertheless, he left the vengeance 
entirely to God, whose right it was ; and he took not upon him 
so much as to judge of the precise degree of his demerits, but 
committed that also to the unerring judgment of God. I am 
aware, that very considerable Divines, ancient and modern, 
choose to resolve the case another way, either into prediction by 
the Spirit, or into apostolical authority : but I humbly conceive, 
that there is no need of either supposition, to reconcile the 
seeming difficulty. Only, as I before hinted, an Apostle might 
better know the desperate state of such a person, than any one 
can ordinarily know at this day ; and so he might proceed upon 
surer grounds : on which account, his example is not lightly to 
be imitated, or to be drawn into a precedent. Enough, I pre- 
sume, has been here said of the nature, measure, and extent of 
Gospel-forgiveness, and I may now proceed to a new article of 
sacramental preparation. 

b i John v. 16. 2 Tim. iv. 16. d 2 Tim. iv. 14. 

366 The Preparation proper for CHAP. 

3. Another previous qualification, much insisted upon by the 
ancients e , was a due regard to Church unity and public peace, in 
opposition to schism in the Church or faction in the State. The 
reason and the obligation of both is self-evident, and I need not 
enlarge upon it. It may be noted, that the Corinthians, whom 
St. Paul reproved, were much wanting in this article of pre- 
paration ; as appeared by their heats and animosities, their 
sidings and contests. They did not duly consider this Sacra- 
ment as a symbol of peace, a feast of amity : they did not discern 
the Lord's body to be, what it really is, a cement of union, and 
a bond of true Christian membership, through the Spirit. 

4. A fourth article was mercy and charity towards the poor 
brethren f . The equity of which is manifest : and it is a duty 
which has been so often and so well explained, both from the 
press and the pulpit, that I may here spare myself the trouble 
of saying a word more of it. 

Having shewn, first, that repentance, at large, is a necessary 
part of sacramental preparation, and having shewn also of what 
particulars such repentance chiefly consists, {not excluding other 
particulars, for repentance means entire obedience,) I may now 
add, for the preventing groundless scruples, that allowances are 
always supposed for sins of infirmity, sins of daily incursion, such 
as are ordinarily consistent with a prevailing love of God and 
love of our neighbour. The slighter kind of offences ought 
never to be looked upon as any bar to our receiving, but rather 
as arguments for receiving, and that frequently, in order to gain 
ground of them more and more, and to have them washed off in 
the salutary blood of Christ. 

As to the length of time to be taken up in preparing, there is 
no one certain rule to be given, which can suit all cases or cir- 
cumstances : only, when a man has competently adjusted his 
accounts with God, (be it sooner, or be it later,) then is he fit to 
come, and not till then. There is an habitual, and there is an 
actual preparation. The habitual preparation is a good life ; and 
the further we are advanced in it, the less need there is of any 

e Bingham, xv. 8. II. ' See Bingham, xv. 8. 12. 

xiii. the Holy Communion. 367 

actual preparation besides : but because men are too apt to 
flatter and deceive their own hearts, and to speak peace to them- 
selves without sufficient grounds for so doing ; therefore some 
actual preparation, self-examination, &c. is generally necessary 
even to those who may be habitually good, if it be only to give 
them a well grounded assurance that they really are so. How- 
ever, the better men are, the less actual preparation may suffice, 
and the shorter warning will be needful. Some therefore may 
receive as often as they have opportunity, though it were ever so 
sudden or unexpected ; and they may turn it to good account 
by their pious care and recollection in their closets afterwards. 
Others may have a great deal to consider of beforehand, many 
offences to correct, many disorders to set right, much to do and 
much to undo, before they presume to come to God's altar. 

Fault has been sometimes found with the little treatises of 
Weekly Preparation, and the like : I think without reason. 
They are exceeding useful in their kind ; and even their number 
and variety is an advantage, considering that the tastes, tem- 
pers, necessities, capacities, and outward circumstances of Chris- 
tians, are also manifold and various. It may be happy for them 
who need none of those helps : but they that least need them are 
not the men, generally, who most despise them. However, they 
are not obtruded as things absolutely necessary for all, but as 
highly useful to many, and especially upon their first receiving : 
though we are none of us perhaps so perfect, as not to want, at 
some seasons, some such hints for recollection, or helps to de- 
votion. There may be excesses, or there may be defects in such 
treatises : what human compositions are without them \ On the 
other hand, it should be considered, that there may be excesses 
and defects also in the censures or judgments passed upon them : 
for human frailties are as much seen to prevail in the work of 
judging and censuring, as in anything else whatsoever. In the 
general, it is well for common Christians, that they are so 
plentifully provided with useful manuals of that kind : they that 
are well disposed will make use of them as often as they need 
them, and will at all times give God thanks and praises for 

368 The Preparation proper for CHAP. 

I have said nothing, hitherto, about coining fasting to the 
Lord's table, neither need I say much now. The rule was early, 
and almost universal S ; a rule of the Church, not a rule of Scrip- 
ture, and so a matter of Christian liberty, rather than of strict 
command. They that use it as most expressive of Christian 
humility and reverence, or as an help to devotion, do well; and 
they that forbear it, either on account of infirmity, or for fear of 
being indisposed, and rendered less fit to attend the service, are 
not to be blamed. No one need be scrupulous concerning this 
matter : none should be censorious either way ; either in rashly 
charging superstition on one hand, or in charging, as rashly, 
irreverence on the other. I shall only observe further, that it 
was a weak thing for so great a man as the justly celebrated 
Mabillon to draw an argument in favour of the corporal pre- 
sence, from the custom of the Church in administering or receiv- 
ing this holy Sacrament fasting h . For as the custom, probably, 
came in accidentally, either because, in times of persecution. 
Christians chose to communicate early in the morning for their 
greater safety, or because abuses had been committed in the 
previous love feasts ; so was it continued for the like prudential 
reasons, and then only came to have different colours put upon 
it, when the reasons which first introduced it were, in a manner, 
forgotten and sunk. Besides, it was the ancient custom for 
both the administrator and receiver of Baptism, to come fasting, 
out of reverence to that Sacrament' : which further shews ho\v 
slight the argument is, drawn from the custom of fasting before 
the Eucharist, as to proving anything of a corporal presence. 
If any man, duly considering how sacred those symbols of the 
Eucharist are, and to what high and holy purposes they were 
ordained, looks upon fasting as a proper token of the reverence 
he bears towards things sacred ; he may as well fast upon that 
principle, as upon the imaginary notion of a corporal or local 

Bingham, xv. 7. 8. Caspar, lib. i. cap. 6. pp. 60, 61. 

Calvoer. Ritual. Eccles. vol. i. p. ' Martene de Antiq. Eccl. Rit. 

413, &c. Sam. Basnag. Annal. torn. torn. i. p. 25. The like rule was 

ii. p. 295, &c. afterwards made for Confirmation. 

h Mabillon de Liturg. Gallican. 

xiv. frequent Communion. 369 

I have nothing further to add, upon the head of sacramental 
preparation : but if any one desires to see this article more 
minutely drawn out, in its full length, he will not perhaps easily 
find a treatise better fitted to the purpose, than Bishop Taylor's 
Worthy Communicant k : to that therefore I refer the reader. 


Of the Obligation to frequent Communion. 

AS to frequency or constancy in receiving the Sacrament, it 
may be justly said in the general, abstracting from particular 
circumstances, that a man cannot too often commemorate our 
Lord and his passion, nor too often return devout thanks and 
praises for the same, nor too often repeat his resolutions of 
amendment, nor too often renew his solemn engagements, nor 
too often receive pardon of sins, and fresh succours of Divine 
grace : and if coming to the Lord's table (prepared or unpre- 
pared) were a sure and infallible way to answer those good and 
great ends, there could then be no question, but that it would 
be both our wisdom and our duty to communicate as often as 
opportunities should invite and health permit. But it is cer- 
tain, on the other hand, that bare communicating is not the 
thing required, but communicating worthily. Here lies the main 
stress of all, not to urge frequency of communion so far as to 
render this holy Saci-ament hui-tful or fruitless to the parties 
concerned ; neither yet to abate so far of the frequency, as to 
make a kind of dearth or famine of this so salutary and neces- 
sary food. Divines in all ages of the Church (unless we may 
except the first, and part of the second) have found some per- 
plexity in settling a just mean between the extremes. I do not 
mean as to theory, or as to the thing considered in the general 
and in the abstract, but with respect to particular persons, cases, 
and circumstances ; of which it is very difficult, if not impossible, 
to judge with unerring exactness. They determined perhaps 
as well and as wisely, upon the fairest presumptions and pro- 
babilities, as human sagacity in such dark cases could do : and 

k Taylor's Worthy Communicant, chap. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. pp. 79 357. 


37 The Olligation to CHAP. 

if they sometimes ran into extremes, either on the right hand or 
on the left, their meaning all the while was good, and their con- 
duct such as may reasonably claim all candid construction, and 
the best natured allowances. One thing is observable, (and I 
know not whether one can justly blame them for it,) that, for 
the most part, they seemed inclinable to abate of frequency, 
rather than of the strictness of preparation or qualification. 
They considered, that due dispositions were absolutely necessary 
to make the Sacrament salutary, and were therefore chiefly to 
be looked to : and they supposed, with good reason, that God 
would more easily dispense with the want of the Sacrament than 
with the want of the qualifications proper for it. They thought 
further, that while a man was content to abstain from the 
Lord's table, out of an awful reverence for it, there was good 
probability that such a person would, by degrees, be perfectly 
reclaimed : but if once a man should set light by those holy 
solemnities, and irreverently rush upon them, without awe or 
concern, there could be very little hopes of his conversion or 
amendment ; because he despised the most sacred bands of alle- 
giance towards God, and looked upon them only as common 
forms'. Such were the prevailing sentiments of the ablest 
Divines and casuists in those ancient times ; as will appear more 
fully, when I come to give a brief detail of their resolutions in 
this article, which I shall do presently. 

But I may first take notice, for the clearer conception of the 
whole case, that, since it is allowed on all hands that there can 
be no just bar to frequency of Communion but the want of 
preparation, which is only such a bar as men may themselves 
remove if they please, it concerns them highly to take off the 
impediment, as soon as possible, and not to trust to vain hopes 
of alleviating one fault by another. It was required under the 
Law, that a man should come holy and clean, and well prepared m 
to the Passover : but yet his neglecting to be clean (when he 
might be clean) was never allowed as a just apology for his stay- 
ing away. No : the absenting in that case was an offence great 

1 Vid. Isidor. Pelusiot. lib. iii. ep. 364, p. 398, alias 345. 
m 2 Chron. xxx. I, &c. ; xxxv. 3 6, &c. 

xiv. frequent Communion. 371 

enough to deserve the being cut off from God's people n , because 
it amounted to a disesteeming, and, in effect, disowning God's 
covenant. The danger of misperforming any religious duty is an 
argument for fear and caution, but no excuse for neglect : God 
insists upon the doing it, and the doing it well also. The proper 
duty of the high priest, under the Law, was a very dangerous 
employ, requiring the exactest care and profoundest reverence : 
nevertheless, there was no declining the service ; neither was 
the exactness of the preparation or qualifications any proper 
excuse to be pleaded for non-performance. It was no sufficient 
plea for the slothful servant, under the Gospel, that he thought 
his Master hard to please, and thereupon neglected his bounden 
duty P : for the use he ought to have made of that thought was, 
to have been so much the more wakeful and diligent in his 
Master's service. Therefore, in the case of the holy Communion, 
it is to very little purpose to plead the strictness of the self- 
examination, or preparation, by way of excuse either for a total, 
or for a frequent, or for a long neglect of it. A man may say, 
that he comes not to the table, because he is not prepared, and 
so far he assigns a good reason : but if he should be further 
asked, why he is not prepared, when he may ; there he can only 
make some trifling, insufficient excuse, or remain speechless. 

But for the further clearing of this important article of fre- 
quent Communion, it may be proper to trace the judgment and 
practice of the churches of Christ from the beginning, and down- 
wards through six or eight centuries ; which I shall endeavour 
to do in as plain and few words as the nature of the subject 
will admit of. 

Century the First. 

In the days of the Apostles, Communions were frequent ; either 
every day, or at least every Lord's day. Some have probably 
enough collected from the history of the Acts, that at Jerusalem, 
the mother church, there was a daily Communion 9, and that in 

n Exod. xii. 15, 19. Num. ix. 13. P Matt. xxv. 24, &c. Luke xix. 

Levit. xvi. 13. Cp. Deyling. 20, &c. 
Observ. Sacr. torn. ii. n. 41, p. 493; Acts ii. 42, 46. 
torn. iii. n. 46, p. 454, &c. 

B b 2 

372 The Obligation to CHAP. 

other churches the custom was to have weekly Communions at 
least, that is to say, upon the Lord's day. But all must be 
understood of persons fitly prepared, to appearance at least : for 
it is certain, that open fornicators, extortioners, idolaters, and the 
like, were not admitted to Communion. Christians were not 
allowed to keep company with such delinquents, no not to eat 
common meals s ; much less to communicate. St. Paul gave 
orders for excommunicating the incestuous Corinthian fc ; and he 
admitted him not again, till after a very serious and solemn 
repentance, after his being almost swallowed up of grief u . How- 
ever, it is observable, that both his exclusion and his readmission 
were within the compass of a twelvemonth : for St. Paul's two 
Epistles to Corinth are judged to bear date the same year, 
namely, A. D. 57. Such are the apostolical precedents for fre- 
quent Communion if prepared, and for abstaining if not prepared. 

Century tlie Second. 

In the next century we have undoubted evidences of weekly 
Communions, and particularly on the Lord's day. This is justly 
collected from the testimony of the younger Pliny above cited x , 
and is plainly declared by Justin Martyr y, of the same century. 
None but true believers and men of good lives were permitted to 
receive, as I before observed z from the same excellent writer : so 
that frequency of communicating was never urged in derogation 
of the preparatory requisites, or to make any abatement in them. 
As to public and scandalous offences, in faith or manners, those 
the Church could see, and provide against, by debarring the of- 
fenders from Communion : and as to secret impediments, they 
took what care they could, by permitting or exhorting such as 
might be conscious of their own unfitness, to forbear coming to 
the altar. There is a remarkable passage to this purpose, in a 
learned writer of the second century, which runs thus : ' Some, 
after the customary division of the elements, leave it upon the 

r Acts xx. 7. * See above, chap. i. p. 26. 

8 I Cor. v. II, 12. Cp. 2 John 10. J Tfj TOV fi\lov \ryonivri rintp 
* i Cor. v. 5, 13. K.T. \. Just. Mart. Apol. i. p. 97. 

u 1 Cor. ii. 6, 7. x See above, chap. xiii. p. 354. 

XIV. frequent Communion. 373 

consciences of their people, either to take their part, or other- 
wise. For the best rule to determine them in their partici- 
pation or forbearance, is their own conscience : and the surest 
foundation for conscience to proceed upon is a good life, joined 
with a competent measure of proficiency in Christian knowledge. 
And the best method of coming at the knowledge of the truth, 
and a right performance of what is commanded, is to choose 
for your direction persons of most approved faith and conduct. 
For whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the 
Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the 
Lord : but let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of 
the bread, and drink of the cup a .' Thus far Clemens. And 
from thence we may observe, that there was yet no standing 
rule or Canon of the Church, obliging all the faithful to receive 
as often as they met for Divine Service ; but Christians were 
left at liberty to judge how far they were fitly qualified in know- 
ledge, or in godly living : only, it was supposed, that they ought 
to be fitly qualified ; and if they were, to receive. 

Tertullian, who lived in the close of the same century, takes 
notice of some who declined receiving, upon the stationary days, 
(Wednesdays and Fridays,) for fear of breaking their fast b . 
He blames them for their foolish scruple, and suggests to them 
a better way, whereby they might keep both their fast and their 
feast. I may observe from it, that he thought it a duty incum- 
bent upon all the faithful, to communicate as often as they might; 
but the Church had not yet enforced the duty with any Canons, 
obliging them under pain of ecclesiastical censure to receive : for, 
had that been the case, Tertullian probably would have men- 
tioned it ; or rather, there would scarce have been room left 
either for their scruples on one hand, or for his charitable advice 
on the other. However, from hence perhaps we may date the 
first beginnings of that coldness and backwardness in point of 
frequent Communion, which grew up apace amongst Christians 
afterwards : it is not certain that those persons were sincere in 
their pretended scruples ; but they might be willing to shift off 
the duty as decently as they could, under the fairest colours. 

a Clem. Alex. Strom, i. p. 318. b Tertullian. de Orat. cap. xiv. p. 136. 

374 The Obligation to CHAP. 

Century the Third. 

St. Cyprian, who flourished about the middle of the third 
century, mentions daily Communions, as the common practice 
of that time c : and he everywhere speaks highly of the use and 
benefit of the Sacrament to the worthy receivers : but no man 
could be more careful to prevent any one's coming to the Lord's 
table, who had committed any of the grievous sins, and had not 
yet made full satisfaction to God and the world, by a strict and 
solemn repentance. 

In this century crept in some superstitious or overcurious 
conceits about legal defilements d , as a bar to Communion, or even, 
to coming to the Christian assemblies. Such niceties, while they 
carried a show of reverence for holy places and things, might 
notwithstanding have better been let alone ; having no warrant 
in the Gospel of Christ, nor in the practice of the earlier ages of 
the Church, so far as appears : neither indeed were they altoge- 
ther consistent with the ancient custom of daily Communions of 
all the faithful, which had obtained in some churches. One 
thing is observable, that during the first three centuries, we meet 
with no. Canons made to enforce frequent Communion, scarce so 
much as exhortations to it, or any complaints of neglect in that 
article : which is an argument that Christians in those times 
were not tardy in that respect, but rather forward and pressing, 
under an high notion of the privilege and comfort of partaking 
of the holy Communion. Therefore the chief care and concern 
of Church guides, during the first ages, was rather to inculcate 
the necessity of due preparation, than to insist upon frequency, 
for which there was less occasion. But times and circumstances 
soon came to be altered ; as we shall see presently, upon taking 
a view of the following centuries. 

Century the Fourth. 

In the year 305 (some say, 300, or 303, or 313, or 324) was 
held a council of nineteen Bishops, at Eliberis, or Elvira, in 

See the whole passage above, drin. Harduin. torn. i. p. 187, &c, 
chap. vi. p. no. Bevereg. Pandect, torn. ii. p. 4, 

a Vid. Canones Dionys. Alexan- &c. 

xiv. frequent Communion. 375 

Andalusia, a province of Spain. Among many other Canons, a 
rule was then made, not to accept of an offering from one who 
did not communicate e . We may judge from hence, that Christ- 
ians now began to be remiss, with respect to Communion, and 
that such Canon was intended for a gentle rebuke to them ; a 
mark of public disfavour, in order to excite and quicken them, 
first to prepare, and then to receive. Many perhaps might now 
grow cold and careless as to coming to the Lord's table ; either 
because they had not a just sense of the use and benefit of it, and 
of the obligations they were under to it ; or they loved the world 
too well, and were willing to put off their repentance from day to 
day, and so of course to stave off that solemn profession which 
the holy Sacrament required. The like coldness and backward- 
ness appeared in many of that age, even with respect to Baptism f : 
for, while they were well-wishers to it, and stood candidates for 
it, they yet loved to procrastinate and to feign excuses ; because 
delaying Baptism was delaying repentance, which depraved nature 
was prone enough to do. The case, very probably, was much 
the same with respect to this other Sacrament : and hence arose 
that coldness towards it, which the Church guides of those times 
wei'e much concerned at, and endeavoured gently to remove. 

When those milder applications did not sufficiently answer, 
some brisker methods were thought on for the compassing the 
same good end. In the year 341, a Council of Antioch decreed, 
That all they who came to Church, and heard the holy Scrip- 
tures read, and afterwards joined not in prayer with the people, 
or turned their backs on the holy Communion, after a disorderly 
way, should be cast out of the Church, till such time as they 
should make public confession of their fault, and give proofs of 
their repentance, and humbly sue to be reconciled .' This rule 

e ' Episcopos placuit ab eo, qui torn. iii. p. 216, &c. Compare Bing- 

non coramunicat, munera accipere ham, xi. 6, 2, 3, c. 

non debere.' Concil. Illiberit. Can. s ndvras rovs ej'<n<Was eir rV e/c- 

xxviii. Harduin. 153. K\i\tria.v. Kal riav Itpuv ypa^Siv eucoi'- 

f Vid. Basil. Homil. in Sanct. ovras, /u/Jj KoivavovvTas 5e evxys apa, 

Bapt. p. 114, &c. edit. Bened. torn, rip \aot, ^ airoTpfirofjifvovs r^v aylav 

ii. Gregor. Nazianz. Orat. xl. p. 647, (itT<i\ri\l/ii> rf)s tvxapiffTias, icard nva, 

&c. Constit. Apostol. lib. vi. cap. 15. ara(fac, rovrovs a.iro&\-liTovs 

Gregor. Nyssen. de Baptism. Opp. rr,s (KKXijffias fois &v 

376 The Obligation to' CHAP. 

may seem to be a severe rule, on more accounts than one. i. As 
it appears to run in general terms, making no express exceptions 
for those who, for just causes, best known to themselves, might 
sometimes decline receiving. 2. Supposing any person to absent 
from the Lord's table, out of reverence to it, (being conscious to 
himself of some secret offences,) as it was a rule of the Church to 
excommunicate no man but for open and scandalous sins, it 
might look hard to excommunicate merely for not receiving con- 
stantly; because it was, in effect, extending discipline even to 
the most private and concealed offences, or to other impedimenta. 
3. Since no one ought to receive but he that sincerely repents ; 
and since repentance must be free, or it is really no repentance ; 
it appears not right to excommunicate a man, in order to oblige 
him to receive, unless it were right also to excommunicate every 
one who should delay repentance, or who would not instantly be 
persuaded to reform, so far as to be capable of receiving worthily 
the holy Communion. This appears not to have been the rule of 
the earlier centuries : for they left men at liberty to judge (except 
in cases of open scandal) how far they were worthy or otherwise, 
and thereupon to choose either to receive or forbear. These or 
the like reasons, I presume, have put learned men upon softening 
explications, to mitigate the rigour of the Canon. Emanuel 
Schelstrate has suggested, that the order then made pointed 
chiefly at the Audians, or Quarto- decimans h , who held private 
conventicles, but came occasionally to Church, to hear the Scrip- 
tures read, and sermons preached, and then departed, in a dis- 
orderly and scornful manner, upon some erroneous principles of 
their sect, to the great scandal and offence of the more serious 
and sober part of the congregation. Schelstrate's account is 
favoured by two circumstances : one, that the Canon immediately 
preceding most plainly strikes at the Quarto-decimans, though 
without naming them ; and the other, that the Canon does not 
simply and absolutely censure all non-communicants, but some 
only, with this restriction, as doing it KOTO, nva ara^iav, which 

fjitvoi Kcd Sttlavrts icapirovs fitravolat, ii. Bevereg. Panel, p. 431. 
icai irapa.Ka\((ravT(s rv\^ v SwaOuxri h Vid. Schelstrate de Concil. Anti- 
Concil. Antioch. Can. ochen. pp. 179, 222. 

xiv. frequent Communion. 377 

Dionysius Exiguus renders 'pro quadam intemperantia,' with a 
certain rudeness; and Isidorus Mercator renders 'secunclum 
aliquam propriam disciplinam,' according to the principles of 
their own sect. Now, if such was the case, then the rigour of 
the Canon affected not the main body of the faithful, adhering to 
the Church, who might be still left to the same discretionary 
conscientious liberty as before. 

Perhaps the like account may serve for the Apostolical Canons 
also, so far as concerns this article : Schelstrate was of that 
mind, and applied the same solution to both \ One of the Apo- 
stolical Canons orders, ' That if any Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, 
or any of the sacerdotal college, does -not communicate when 
there is a Communion, [oblation,] he shall be obliged to assign 
a reason ; and if it be a just one, he shall be excused : other- 
wise he shall be suspended, as giving offence to the people, and 
as raising a suspicion upon the administrator, as if he did not 
salutarily execute his office 1 *.' The last words put me in mind 
of the fourth Canon of the Council of Gangra, held a few years 
before the Antiochian : some place it in 324, some in 330; all 
agree that it was not later than 340. That Canon decrees, 
' That if any one takes exception to a married Presbyter, as 
such, thinking it not lawful to receive the Communion at his 
hands, let him be anathema 1 .' Whether the Antiochian and 
Apostolical Canons might not have some view to that case, in 
what they decreed against any one's turning his back on the 
Communion, I leave to the learned to consider. 

The next Canon called Apostolical makes a like order with 
respect to the laity, as the former had done with regard to the 
clergy : viz. ' That as many of the faithful as came to Church, 
and did not abide all the time of the prayer and Communion, 

1 Schelstrate, ibid. p. 222. us n^i vyicas art vtyKavTos. Can.Apo- 

k El TIS iirio-Koiros, ^ irpecr/JuTfpoj, stol. vi, alias viii. 

v) Sidicovos, $) IK TOV Ka.ra\6yov TOV ' E5f TIS StaKptvotro irtp\ irpcrf$vTf- 

lepariKov, irpo<r<popus ytvo/j.4vris, /u^ pov yeyaw^ros, us rfi xprii>at, \ti- 

HfTa\d/3oi, T^V al-riav flirdrta' xal lav TovpyJi&avros ouToC, irpofftyopas /j.era- 

ffi\oyos rj, crvyyviafjiris rvyxavtrw tl \afj.Bdvfiv, avdOtpa fffrta. Concil. 

Se fj.^1 Ae'7j7, a<popita6<i>, u>s alnos Gangrens. Can. iv. Hard. p. 530. 

tvnBfls T$ \af, xal vieAvoiav Bevereg. Pand. torn. i. 419. 
/card TOV irpofftvtynai'T<is, 

The Obligation to CHAP. 

should be excommunicated, as guilty of raising disturbance in 
the Church m .' It is hard to judge certainly of the parti- 
cular drift or purport of such Canons, without a more explicit 
knowledge of the then present circumstances : but it is not likely 
that they were ever intended to oblige all the faithful to com- 
municate as often as they came to Divine Service, or to abridge 
them of the reasonable liberty of judging how far they were 
prepared for it, and" whether they might not sometimes (provided 
it were not customary, so as to amount to contempt) abstain 
from it. Balsamon, in his Notes upon the Apostolical Canon 
last cited, calls it a very harsh decree n : and so indeed it is, if 
interpreted with utmost rigour. But he intimates elsewhere, 
that the Greek Church in his time received it with a softening 
explication . Schelstrate, as before noted, has suggested another ; 
and to both I have taken the liberty to subjoin a third. It is 
not reasonable to think, that a modest and sober departure, 
before Communion began, (a practice now common, and, I believe, 
always in use, more or less,) could be looked upon as a dis- 
turbance : but if it was done out of dislike, or contempt, and upon 
factious principles, then indeed it would be apt to make great- 
disturbance ; and that, very probably, was what the compilers of 
those Canons were solicitous to prevent or remedy. But I return. 
I proceed in reciting the principles of the fourth century, with 
regard to frequent Communion. Basil (about the year 372) 
being consulted on this head, declares it good and profitable to 
communicate every day ; testifying withal, of the practice of the 
ehm-ch of Caesarea, where he was, that they celebrated the 
Sacrament four times a week, (on Sunday, Wednesday, Friday, 
and Saturday,) besides the saints' days, [festivals of martyrs,] as 
often as they occurred P : but he does not say how diligent or 
how constant the people were in attending upon it. 

m TldvTas TOOJ fiffi6t>ras ITHTTOVS tls n AiopjiTM^s Spi/j.vrar6s tanv. Bal- 

rV ayiav @eov lKK\^ffia.v, Kal rcav sum. in loc. 

if pav ypa(f>>v aKouocTos, ^ irapanf- Vid. Beveregii Annot. in Apost. 

vovrax Se rrj irpo<revxV Ka ^ r ? &y' l t Can. ix. p. 21. 

jUTo\^6t, us araiav tfutoiovvras TT? P Basil. Epist. xciii. (alias cclxxxix.) 

eKK\i]ffia, a.<(>opieff()ai xpV- Can. Apo- p. 186, ed. Bened. torn. iii. Cp. So- 

stol. vii. alias ix. crat. Eccles. Histor. lib. v. cap. 22. 

xiv. frequent Communion. 379 

Chiysostom, of the same century, somewhat later, will give 
us the best light, both with respect to the practice of that age, 
and the rules whereby it was conducted. In one place of his 
works, he speaks thus : ' Many partake of this sacrifice once a 
year, some twice, some oftener. Which of them should we 
most approve oH Those that communicate once, or those that 
do it often, or those that seldom do it 1 ? Neither the once-comers, 
nor the often, nor the seldom, but those that come with a clean 
conscience, a pure heart, and a life unblamable, they that are so 
qualified should come constantly : but as to them that are not, 
once is too much for them. And why so 1 Because they will 
only receive to themselves judgment and condemnation, pains 
and penalties <i.' Here we may observe how this good Father 
pressed upon his hearers the duty of constant Communion, but 
under caution of coming fitly prepared : otherwise he thought it 
would not be barely fruitless, but hurtful. That was the standing 
rule of the Church, the settled principle which they constantly 
went upon, with respect to both Sacraments. For, whatever high 
notions they might entertain of the use or necessity of Baptism, 
yet they never would encourage any person to receive it, before 
they believed him well qualified for it ; but would sometimes 
keep the catechumens back, for five, or ten, or twenty years, or 
even to the hour of death, rather than admit them in a state of 
impenitence, or before they had been well disciplined and proved 1 ". 
Sacraments were a good superstructure : but the foundation was 
first and principally to be looked to, the foundation of repentance 
and a good life. Qualifications ought to go before admission : 
and service before privileges. But I pass on. 

Chrysostom, in another Homily, reproves the non-communi- 
cants, and presses frequent Communion in the manner here fol- 
lowing : ' In vain stand we at the altar, none come to receive. 
I speak not barely to persuade you to receive, but to make 
yourselves worthy. You are not worthy [you will say] of the 
sacrifice, or not fit to receive ? Then neither are you worthy 
of the prayer : do you not hear the Deacon, when he stands up 

i Chrysostom. in Heb. Horn. xvii. T See Testimonies referred to in 
p. 856, edit. Paris. Bingham, xi. 6. I. 

380 The Obligation to CHAP. 

and proclaims, As many among you as are under penance, with- 
draw ? All that do not communicate, are supposed to be 
under penance. If you are of the number of penitents, you 
must not receive : for he that does not receive is under 
penance. "Why does he [the Deacon] say, All ye that cannot 
pray, depart? And why do you, after that, impudently stay? 
You are not one of those, you will say, but of those who may 
receive. Have you then no regard for that, or do you think 
it a slight privilege ? Consider, I beseech you, &c. Every one 
that does not partake of the mysteries, is shameless and im- 
pudent to stand by all the while. You sing the hymn with 
the rest, and you profess yourself one of the worthy, by your 
not departing with the unworthy. With what face then can 
you presume to stay, and yet not partake of the table? You 
plead, you are unworthy : you are therefore unworthy to join 
in the prayers, for the Holy Spirit descends, not only in the 
offering of the elements, but also in the chanting of the hymns 8 / 
Chrysostom here pleads for frequent Communion, in a strong 
affecting way, but still loses not sight of the main point, which 
was the receiving worthily. 

The argument he draws from prayer to Communion has been 
sometimes misunderstood, and may here deserve to be set right. 
He does not mean that prayer in general requires the same 
preparation that the Communion does, or that every one who 
may properly be admitted to the former may as properly be 
admitted to the latter also. No : that would run directly counter 
to the known principles and practice, and standing discipline of 

* Chrysost. in Ephes. Horn. iii. pp. Isa. vi. 3. 

887, 888. But the first and fourth are the 

N. B. The Communion hymns are most ancient : the second and third 

by Goar (Euchol. p. 136) distin- are both later than Chrysostom. The 

guished into four : three last are but one trisagium in 

I. "ffivos a>7Aj)cdj. The angeli- the main, one cherubical, or sera- 
pal. 'Glory to God on high,' &c. phical hymn, with some variations, 

i. "Ypvos xfpov$i6s. The cherub- additions, and interpolations made 

'ical hymn, in Goar, p. 206. at different times. See Bingham, 

3. "Tfiifos rpiffdyios. Sanctus Deus, xiv. 2, 3 ; xv. 3, 9, 10. Allix. Dis- 
sanctus fortis, &c. sert. de Trisagii Origine. Renaudot. 

4. "Tjuvos tirivlitios. The triumphal Liturg. Collect, torn. i. p. 228. torn, 
hymn. 'Holy, holy, holy, Lord,'&c. ii. p. 69. 

xiv. frequent Communion. 381 

the Church in that age : for nothing was more usual than to 
admit penitents of the foui'th order, to communion in prayers, for 
two, three, four, or sometimes five years, and all the while to 
debar them from the holy Communion, as not yet worthy to be 
admitted to it 4 . But what Chrysostom meant was, that it was 
very absurd, and even downright impudent, for a man to claim 
a right to stand by, all the while that the Communion was 
administering, and to join in those most sacred and mystical 
prayers and hymns, which were proper to it, and at the same 
time to pretend that he was not worthy of it : for, if he really 
was not worthy to receive, he was not worthy to be present 
during that holy solemnity, or to bear a part in the prayers 
which peculiarly belonged to it. I know, it has been thought 
by persons of good learning, that the fourth order of penitents 
(called a-vviordnevoi, consistentes, in English co-standers, or asso- 
ciates) were allowed to be present during the whole solemnity, 
while prohibited from receiving, and that Sunday after Sunday, 
for several years together : which would have been committing 
that very absurdity which Chrysostom here so strongly remon- 
strates against. But I take that prevailing notion to be all a 
mistake, owing to the want of a right understanding the ancient 
Canons and ancient phi-ases. Those co-standers were allowed to 
communicate in prayers with the faithful". What prayers, is 
the question. I suppose the prayers previous to the holy kiss, 
previous also to the oblation; which were indeed part of the Missa 
fklelium, or Communion Service, (like to our prayer for the Church 
militant,) but were not the proper mystical prayers belonging to 
the Communion, and of which Chrysostom is to be understood. 
The co-standers, being the highest order of penitents, had the 

* Concil. Ancyran. Can. 4, 5, 6, catechumens, after the Gospel, or 

7, 8, 9, 16, 24. Concil. Nicen. Can. with the penitents soon after, com- 

II, 11, 13. Basil. Can. 22, 30, 56, municated in prayer, as appears by 

57> 58, 59, 61, 66, 75, 82, 83. Con- the Apostolical Constitutions. Mi; 

cil. Carthag. vi. Can. n. Concil. Koivtavfiroxrav 5e fv rrj irpoffevx^, 

Trull. Can. 87. oAA" f^fpxevOtaffav /ueroc rrji> avajvo. - 

u Ei/x^s 8e novrjs KOivuvriffai. Con- ffiv rov v6fj.ov Kal riOiv irpo<f>tjruf Kal 

cil. Ancyr. Can. iv. Koivtavfia'ai x- ra ^> evayyf\lov. lib. ii. cap. 39. The 

p\s irpoffcpopas. Ibid. Can. vi. So in Council of Laodicea distinctly men- 

the Xicene Canons, and Basil's, '&c. tions what prayers preceded the ob- 

All that did not depart with the lation. Can. xix. p. 786, Harduin.. 

382 The Obligation to CHAP. 

privilege to stand in the same place of the Church with the 
faithful, and to abide there, after the catechumens and lower 
penitents were dismissed ; and they were permitted to commu- 
nicate in prayer, till the oblation began, and then they also were 
to withdraw. This I collect, as from several other circumstances, 
so particularly from hence, that the Deacons just before the 
salutation of peace, warned all non-communicants to withdraw x . 
The co-stauders must of course have been reckoned of that num- 
ber, being forbid to communicate ; and therefore they must have 
been obliged to withdraw after the preparatory prayers, and 
before the Communion, properly speaking, began. Chrysostom 
himself intimates in another Homily, that all non-communicants 
were warned to depart y; and that presently after came on the 
mystical hymn. About that time the co-standers, as I conceive, 
withdrew. Neither, indeed, is it credible, that so knowing a 
person as Chrysostom would have represented it as a flaming 
absurdity for a non-communicant to be present during the whole 
solemnity, had the custom of the Church allowed it in the co- 
standers, who were non-communicants. 

It may be objected, that Pope Sirieius (about A. D. 385) 
allowed or ordered some non -communicants to abide till the whole 
service was over z : and Sozomen speaks of the custom of the 
western churches, as obliging the penitents to wait all the time 
of the Communion Service, in order to receive the Bishop's abso- 
lution after it was ended 8 . These are the principal passages 
which have led learned men into a persuasion, that the co-standers 
were used to be present during the whole solemnity. But they 

* 'f.v rfj dfia avatpopa. 6 Siaxovos sost. Homil. de Fil. Prod. torn. ri. 

Tpoatpavt't irpb TOV affTfafffiOv' ol CLKOI- p. 375, Paris. 

VI!>VI}TOL irepnrar'fia-are. Timoth. Alex. z ' Diximus decernendum, ut sola 

Resp. ix. 1 104, Hard. Ol rrjv icpfarp intra ecclesiam fidelibus oratione jun- 

tuxV fvxfafvoi, irpof \9fTf. Apost. gantur; Sacris niysteriorum celebri- 

Constitut. lib. viii. cap. 12. 'Si quis tatibus, quamvis non mereantur, in- 

non communicat, det locum.' Gre- tersint ; a Dominicae autem mensae 

gor. M. Dial. lib. ii. cap. 23. convivio segregentur,' &c. Siric. 

y Mr) rts TUV KaTTfixov(j.fvu>i>, p-fi TIS Epist. p. 848, Harduin. 
TUV fitr) fffOiovTiav, fnij ns riav Ka.TO.ffn6- * H \Tr)pta8t iffr\ j TTJJ TOV &tov \fi~ 

irwv, pr) ris TOIV p)] Svya-Ufvuv 8td<ra- Tovpyias. Sozom. lib. vii. cap. 1 6, 

aOat Tbv pdcrxov iaOi6fj.tvov. . . . H.TI TJ p. 300, edit. Cant. 
avd^tos Tjjy ^uxrris 6u<rias, &c. Chry- 

XIV. frequent Communion. 383 

did not observe, that the preparatory service was called the 
service, or the mass, and that the Communion, properly, began 
not till that service was ended, and the non-communicants were 
withdrawn. Gregory Turonensis, of the sixth century, may help 
to clear this matter : he speaks of the Communion's beginning 
after the masses or liturgies were ended b . Cyprian, long before, 
spake much after the same way c . And even Justin Martyr has 
made mention of the common prayers, as ended, before the Com- 
munion began, before the holy salutation : and soon after he 
takes notice of the subsequent prayers and thanksgivings proper 
to the Communion d . Those subsequent prayers were what 
Chrysostom spake of, as altogether improper for any to join in, 
or to be present at, except the communicants themselves. 

A learned writer of our own observes, that 'what in Chry- 
sostom's time was reckoned a crime, was presently after ac- 
counted a piece of devotion, for the people to stay and hear 
the whole solemnity of the service, till the time of communicat- 
ing, and then they might depart without partaking of the 
Communion : which was plainly a relaxation of the ancient 
discipline, and a deviation from the primitive practice 6 .' For 
this he refers to the Council of Agde of the year 506, and to the 
first Council of Orleans in 5 1 1 . I take not upon me to defend 
Avhat was done in later times, but to clear Chrysostom's argu- 
ment, as consonant to the principles and practice of that age 
with respect to non-communicants, whether co-standers or others. 
However, I must observe, with respect even to the Councils of 
Agde and Orleans, that no order was made for non-communicants 
to stay during the whole solemnity of the Communion : only, they 

b ' Ubi peractis solemnibus, ad coepit,'&c. Cyprian, de Laps. p. 132, 

sacrosanctum altarium communican- edit. Oxon. 

cli gratia accessisset,' &c. Gregor. d "AAArjAous <f>i\-finan a.<rira.ij(j.f8a, 

Turon. lib. ix. n. 3, p. 419. ira.vffdfj.evoi Ttav fi/x^f firfira irpoa- 

' Cumque expletis missis, populus <ptptTai rtf irpofffreoTt T>V aSe\<pwf 

coepisset sacrosanctum corpus Re- &pros, KOI irorfyiov SSoToy, Kal Kpdua- 

demptoris accipere.' Greg. Turon. ros. Kal OVTOS \a&iav, alvov Kal $6av 

de Mirac. Mattin. lib. ii. cap. 47, ry Trarpl -ruv', 5io TOV 6v6naros 

p. 1060. Cp. Mabillon de Liturg. TOV vlov, Kal TOV irveu/uaroj TOV ayiov, 

Gallican. pp. 35, 36, 51. wwrt^vti. Justin. Mart. Apol. i. 

c ' Ubi vero solennibua adimpletis, pp. 95, 96, edit. Thirlb. 

calicem diaconus offerre praesentibus e Bingham, xv. 4, 2. 

384 The Obligation to CHAP. 

were obliged to wait for the Bishop's benediction, (which was 
previous f to the most solemn part of the service,) and then to 
depart. So that though the dismission of the non-communicants 
might perhaps be deferred somewhat later now, than in Chry- 
sostom's time, yet dismissed they were before the Communion 
properly came on ; and the absurdity which Chrysostom com- 
plained of, that of staying out the whole solemnity without 
communicating, never was admitted in those days. 

The principal use I had in view, by what I have here said, 
was to take off a kind of popular plea, which has been sometimes 
urged in the name of Chrysostom, that every one who may be 
admitted to prayers, ought to be admitted to Communion also ; 
and that there is no more reason for absenting from the Com- 
munion, on account of unfitness, than there is for absenting from 
prayers on the like account : for it is pleaded, that either a man 
is fit for both or for neither. Chrysostom never said, or most 
certainly never meant any such thing : so that his authority ought 
to be out of the question. As to the reason of the case, the plea 
can never hold upon that foot. It is true, prayer requires some 
preparation ; and a man may pray unworthily, as well as com- 
municate unworthily : and his prayer, in such circumstances, 
may be vain and fruitless . But yet it is nowhere said, that he 
who prays unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the 
Lord, or that he shall draw down judgment upon himself by 
doing it. Neither is all prayer so sacred and solemn as sacra- 
mental prayer, nor is any mere prayer a federal rite, like a 
Sacrament : nor does the want of due preparation in prayer 
(though a culpable neglect) so directly tend to frustrate the 
most sacred ties, and to turn all religion into hypocrisy and form, 
as the want of it in the other case does : therefore, the two cases 
are by no means parallel, but similar only, and that in great 
disproportion. And hence it was (as I before hinted) that the 
ancients, while they admitted catechumens to some prayers, pro- 
per to them, and the lower degrees of penitents to prayers proper 

f Vid. Bona de Reh. Liturg. lib. Ecclesiast. vol. i. p. 713. Bingham, 

ii. cap. 16, n. I, 2, p. 664, &c. Ma- xv. 3, 28, 29. 
billoii de Liturg. Gallic, lib. i. cap. Prov. xv. 8. Isa. i. 15. 
4, n. 14, p. 35. Calvoer. RituaL 

xiv. frequent Communion. 385 

for them, and the highest order of penitents to some part of the 
Communion prayers, as not improper for them ; yet they debarred 
even the best of them, sometimes, month after month, or year 
after year, as not yet worthy to receive the holy Communion. 

I may now proceed somewhat further with Chrysostom. In 
another Homily, after he had been speaking of the danger of 
receiving unworthily, he adds, 'I speak not this to deter you 
from coming, but from coming carelessly. For, as there is danger 
in coming carelessly, so there is famine and death in the not 
partaking at all of the mystical supper. This table is, as it were, 
the sinews of our souls, the girding up of the mind, the support 
of our confidence; our hope, our health, our light, our life h .' 
Here the eloquent Father seems to make it not so bad to receive 
unworthily, as to forbear receiving at all : for he represents the 
one as dangerous, the other as fatal. If so, the unworthy non- 
communicant would be in a worse condition than the unworthy 
communicant ; and it would be safest to receive at all adventures : 
and if that were admitted, it would be hard to justify the ancient 
discipline with respect to either Sacrament. But here we must 
answer with distinction. Supposing the unworthiness equal in 
both, there is equally contempt in both cases, but not equal 
contempt ; for the unworthy communicant is guilty of a greater 
contempt than the other, and is the most profane of the two, 
incurring greater damnation. As it were better not to have 
known the way of life, than to go counter to it 1 ; so it were 
better never to take the Sacrament, than to profane it as con- 
stantly as we take it. So then, to neglect it out of contempt is 
indeed famine and death : but still the other is more dangerous, 
as exposing the person to sorer death and more grievous punish- 
ment ; which I take to be Chrysostom's real meaning. Never- 
theless, if a man only suspects or doubts within himself, whether 
he is fit to receive, it will certainly be his safest way to receive ; 
and his humble modesty, if really such, will itself be a commend- 
able part of his preparation k . The degrees of unworthiness are 
many and various, and no man is strictly worthy : a sincere, 

h Chrysostom in I Cor. x, Horn. 2 Pet. ii. 21. 
xxv. p. 262. t See Luke xviii. 13, 14. 

C C 

386 The Obligation to CHAP. 

though for the present weak resolution to amend instantly in 
every known article of disobedience, seems to be ordinarily a 
sufficient security against the danger of receiving unworthily. 

Century the Fifth. 

The first Council of Toledo, in the year 400, made an order 
about those who were observed never to come to Communion, that 
they should be admonished for such their habitual and total 
neglect, and if they did not reform, should be obliged to submit 
to penance 1 . This decree appears very mild and moderate, as 
being pointed only against those who constantly absented, and 
as prescribing an admonition before the censure ; and at length 
excommunicating those only, who had in a manner excommuni- 
cated themselves. No doubt but such order might have a veiy 
good effect upon those who were barely supine and careless in 
that article, otherwise leading innocent lives. But perhaps ex- 
hortation or admonition alone might have been sufficient to as 
many as were well disposed ; and as to the rest, censure might be 
thought too much : for who shall force a man to repent 1 Or 
how is it repentance, if it is not free 1 Or what signifies the 
coming to the Lord's table in hypocrisy ? These considerations 
have their weight : and therefore excommunication in such a 
case, so far as it is justifiable, must be maintained upon some 
general principle, such as the necessity of removing notorious 
offences or scandals, for fear of contagion to the rest, and for fear 
of bringing an infamy upon the whole body, by such connivance 
as might look too like an allowance of so shameful a neglect. 
The general good of the Church, in some cases, ought to overrule 
all such considerations as have been before mentioned. For ex- 
ample : there are, suppose, ten thousand officiating clergy in a 
nation, who may be obliged, by the laws of Church and State, to 
administer and to receive the holy 1 Communion, so often, be they 
prepared or otherwise. In such a number, some hundreds, it 
may be, may officiate and receive, not duly prepared. Let them 

1 ' De his qui intrant in ecclesiam, communicant, ad poenitentiam ac- 
et deprehenduntur imnquara com- cedant,' &c. Concil. Tolet. i. Can. 
uiunicare t admoneantur, ut, si non 13. 

xiv. frequent Communion. 387 

look to that : the Church is clear so far, because the necessity of 
the case and the general good so requires. It would be trifling 
here to urge, that it is forcing men to profane the holy Sacra- 
ment, or forcing them to repent and amend. That must be 
risked upon higher and more weighty considerations : for God's 
people must not be deprived of the benefit of the Sacrament in 
such cases. Therefore, I observed, that the considerations before 
mentioned have their weight ; as indeed they ought to have ; but 
so far only, as they are not opposed to other considerations of a 
more general nature, and of still greater weight. 

The same Council made a strict order, that such of the resi- 
dent clergy as came not to the daily prayers and Communion 
should be deposed, if they did not reform after admonition 10 . 
By this we see that daily Communions were yet kept up in some 
churches. Which appears likewise from the testimonies of 
Jerome 11 and Austin , of that time. Some Christians of that 
age were so scrupulous in that matter, that they thought them- 
selves under a strict obligation to communicate, if possible, 
every day : others thought otherwise ; and St. Austin was con- 
sulted upon the question. It was pleaded on the side of daily 
Communion, that every one ought to communicate as often as he 
worthily might ; and that if he was not debarred by Church cen- 
sures from it, he might be looked upon as worthy, the Church 
being judge of that case. On the other side it was pleaded, that 
some particular chosen days, when a man might be most recol- 
lected, and best prepared, were preferable ; for so the greater 
reverence would be shewn towards the Sacrament, and it would 
be more likely to answer its end and use. St. Austin did not 
care to determine for either, but took a middle way to compro- 

m ' Clericus, si intra civitatein fue- corpus accipiant : quod nee repre- 

rit, vel in loco quo ecclesia est, aut hendo, nee laudo ; unusquisque enim 

castello, aut vico, aut villa, et ad in suo sensu abundat.' Hieron. adv. 

ecclesiam ad sacrificium quotidianum Jovin. p. 239. Cp. Ep. lii. ad Lucin. 

non accesserit, clericus non habeatur, p. 579, ed. Bened. 
si castigatus per satisfaction em ve- ' Alii quotidie communicant cor- 

niamab episcopo noluerit promereri.' pori et sanguini Domini, alii certis 

Concil. Tolet. i. Can. 5. diebus accipiunt.' Augustin. Epist. 

n 'Scio Eomae hanc esse consue- ad Jan. liv. (alias cxviii.) p. 124. 

tudinem ut fideles semper Christi torn. ii. edit. Bened. 

C C 2 

388 The Obligation to CHAP. 

mise the dispute ; which was to advise both parties (as they in- 
tended the same thing in the main) to shew their reverence to 
the Sacrament in their different ways, according to their respec- 
tive persuasions. For, says he, ' neither of them really dishon- 
ours the Lord's body and blood, while both contend, only in a 
different way, who shall do most honour to the blessed Sacrament. 
For neither did Zaccheus and the Centurion strive together, or 
one prefer himself before the other, when the former gladly 
received our Lord into his house, and the latter said, " I am not 
worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof :" but both did 
honour to our Saviour in their several, or rather, contrary ways ; 
both were sinners, and both found mercy. So here, one out of 
reverence dares not partake every day : another out of the like 
reverence, dares not omit it a single day : all is well, so long as 
there is no contempt in either case upon the holy Sacrament P.' 
This resolution of St. Austin was most certainly very wise and 
just, suitable to the question as there stated, whether a man 
should communicate every day, or only upon some select days, 
when fittest for it. But had the question been, whether it were 
sufficient for persons fitly prepared to communicate once or twice 
a year, or the like, he would have said no, but oftener; either 
every month, or every week, if opportunity offered. Gennadius, 
who lived in the close of the same century, (about A. D. 495,) 
determined as cautiously about daily receiving, neither approving 
or disapproving it : but weekly receiving he spoke fully up to, 
recommending it as highly proper for all that were competently 
prepared, that is, for all that were sincerely penitent, and were 
not under any prevailing inclination to vicei. 

P ' Neuter enim eorum exhonorat ambo peccatis miseri, ambo miseri- 

corpus et sanguinem Domini, sed cordiam consecuti. . . . Ille honoran- 

saluberrimum sacramentum certatim do non audet quotidie sumere ; et 

honorare coritendunt. Neque enim ille honorando non audet ullo die 

litigaverunt inter se, aut quisquam praetermittere. Contemptum solum 

eorum se alteri praeposuit Zachaeus non vult cibus iste," &c. Augustin. 

et ille Centurio, cum alter eorum ibid. p. 125. 

gaudens in domum suam susceperit * 'Quotidie Eucharistiae commu- 

Dominum. Alter dixerit ; Non sum nionem percipere nee laudo nee 

dignus ut intres sub tectum meum : vitupero : omnibus tamen Dominicis 

ambo Salvatorem honor! ficantes di- diebus communicandum suadeo et 

verso, et quasi contrario, modo ; hortor ; si tamen mens in affectu 

xiv. frequent Communion, 389 

Century tite Sixth. 

In the beginning of this century (about A. D. 506) the 
Council of Agde, in Gaul, obliged the laity to receive three times 
a year at least, at the three great festivals, Christmas, Easter, 
and Whitsuntide r . It is the first precedent of that kind : and 
some very pious and serious Christians have wished, that it 
never had been set, because it might furnish an handle to many 
for imagining that they were under no obligation to greater 
frequency. But the Council designed no such inference ; which 
at best is but a perverse construction of the thing : only, they 
considered, that to oblige all persons to receive weekly was im- 
practicable ; and to exhort them to frequency at large, without 
specifying any certain times, was doing nothing; and that if 
ordinary Christians were left to themselves, they would not, 
probably, communicate so often as thrice in the year, nor 

Other Councils, later in the same century, revived the more 
ancient rules: the Councils of Braccara and Luca, in Spain, 
(A.D. 572,) approved of the collection of old canons drawn up by 
Martinus Braccarensis ; among which is the Second Antiochian 
canon, above recited, being the eighty-third in this collection B . 
Afterwards, the second Council of Macon (A. D. 585) endea- 
voured to reinforce weekly communions, obliging both men 
and women to communicate every Lord's Day, under pain of 

peccandi non sit. Nam habentem r ' Seculares, qui Natali Domini, 

adhuc voluntatem peccandi, gravari Pascha, et Pentecosten, non commu- 

magis dico Eucharistiae perceptione, nicaverint, Catholici non credantur, 

quam purificari. Et ideo quamvis nee inter Catholicos habeantur.' Con- 

quis peccato mordeatur, peccandi cil. Agatheng. Can. xviii. p. 1000. 

non habeat de caetero voluntatem, Hard. 

et communicaturus satisfaciat lacry- 6 It is thus worded : ' Si quis in- 

mis et orationibus, et confidens de trat Ecclesiam Dei, et sacras Scrip- 

Domini miseratione, qui peccata turas audit, et pro luxuria sua aver- 

piae confessioni donare consuevit, tit se a communione sacramenti, et 

accedat ad Eucharistiam intrepidus in observandis mysteriis declinat 

et securus. Sed hoc de illo dico, constitutam regulam disciplinae, is- 

quern capitalia et mortalia peccata turn talem projiciendum de Ecclesia 

non gravant.' Gennad. Massil. inter Catholica decernimus,' &c. Concil. 

August. Opp. torn. viii. App. p. 78. Braccarens. et Lucens. Can. Ixxxiii. 

ed. Bened. Hard. torn. iii. p. 400. 

The Obligation to CHAP. 

anathema * : which was severe enough, unless we may understand 
it only as opposed to absenting in way of scorn or contempt. 

Century the Seventh. 

I may here take notice, that the Council of Autun, in the year 
670 u , revived the above-mentioned canon of the Council of Agde, 
about communicating three times a year, at the three great fes- 
tivals. In this century, the Greeks used to communicate weekly ; 
and such as neglected three weeks together were excommuni- 
cated : but in the Church of Rome, the people were left more 
to their own liberty x . 

Century the Eigltth. 

Venerable Bede, in his epistle to Ecgbriht Archbishop of 
York, in the year 734, has a passage to our purpose, worth the 
noting. He writes thus: 'The teachers... should instruct the 
people, how salutary daily communions might be to all kinds 
of Christians; a point which the Church of Christ through 
Italy, Gaul, Africa, Greece, and the whole East, have much 
laboured, as you well know. This solemn service of religion, 
and devout sanctification to Godward, is so far sunk almost 
among all the laity, by negligence of their teachers; that even 
those among them who appear to have a more than ordinary 
sense of religion, yet presume not to partake of those holy 
mysteries but upon the Nativity, Epiphany, and Easter : 
though there are innumerable persons of very innocent and 
chaste conversation, boys and girls, young men and maidens, 
old men and matrons, who, without the least scruple of doubt, 
might well receive every Lord's Day, or over and above, upon 

' 'Decernimus, ut omnibus Domi- Can. iv. Hard. torn. iii. p. 461. 
nicis diebus, altaris oblatio ab omni- u Concil. Augustodunens. Can. 

bus viris et mulieribus offeratur tarn xiv. Hard. torn. iii. p. 1015. 
panis quam vini, ut per has immola- * 'Graeci omni Dominica die com- 

tiones, et peccatorum fascibus c